Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.)


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

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. Improbable 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, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
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. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  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]

August 27[edit]

Japanese square[edit]

Vague synonym, mostly I get Google search results about restaurants, hotels etc. - TheChampionMan1234 01:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete I was thinking it'd be more properly some sort of Japanese garden/courtyard/Zen stone garden -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jepun[edit]

No affinity for Indonesian. - TheChampionMan1234 01:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

HPME[edit]

Short for "honours Programme in Medical Education". Not unique to this school. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Honors Program in Medical Education[edit]

Not unique to this school. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:P[edit]

Wikidata uses two concepts repeatedly, P and Q. Template:Q makes a link to Wikidata items. Template:P currently redirects to Template:Smiley, but could go to Wikidata properties. Since the concept of P is so fundamental to Wikidata, and since the current P redirect to smiley is only used about 1500 times, I propose to take over Template:P for Wikidata. Any objections? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:P for usage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Repurpose as proposed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This template is explicitly intended to be substituted, which is why "only" 1500 uses can be found. (Fifteen hundred!) It is also intended to be incredibly short and easy to introduce, because we should be smiling frequently Face-smile.svg. And when you type it out, it makes a little smiley face at you with the tongue sticking out. Unless I am horribly misunderstanding the proposal, there exists no reason whatsoever to recreate the Wikidata template at Template:P; it could be recreated with any title, such as {{WDP}}. I'm also not sure why the nominator thinks that Wikidata's decision to use Template:P means that a template used thousands upon thousands of times on Wikipedia must be moved. Red Slash 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC
  • delete this location, it's far to vague a name; Wikidatea can use {{WDP}} and {{WDQ}} per above; rename the smiley, it could use a form that includes the nose {{-P}} instead -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as is per Red Slash. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 07:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not Wikidata, and there is no reason given why they need to have the same template names. {{P}} is obviously very widely used on en.wp for its current purpose if there are over a thousand transclusions of a template that is supposed to be substituted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thryduulf, Red Slash, Technical 13: I am just checking for options and do not know what is best. As I said, Wikidata has two major and fundamental functions, one called Q and the other P. I expect that in the future, it would be most natural for every Wikimedia project which uses Latin characters to have some template for each of these, as Wikidata is inherently multilingual and facilitates the exchange of information across Wikimedia projects. "Wikipedia is not Wikidata", as is said, but Wikidata is Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and everything else in every language, and it would be natural to have the same templates used as many Wikimedia projects as possible. The most natural and obvious names for these templates would be P and Q, with the P template looking a lot like Template:Q.
I am not going to force this issue but if there is not some plan for reconciliation, then it would not surprise me if this issue were raised again in the future. I doubt that I will be the last person to imagine that the P template is the most desirable place from which to call Wikidata's P function. Any longer template name would be more difficult to translate into every language and make as universal as possible on many wikis, and inter-wiki connections do seem to be a trend for the future.
I do not want to upset or disturb existing practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Geno whirl[edit]

This special move of a Super Mario RPG character isn't mentioned at the target article, and likely never will be per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Compare to Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack. BDD (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Rameshwar City[edit]

No source mention Rameshwar Wadi as "Rameshwar City" the article itself mention it as a small village hence this redirect is a obvious madeup by the author. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Control (album)[edit]

This is not a deletion nomination. This redirect is for improvements. Because removing "Janet Jackson" from the title is impossible, I propose that this be retargeted to Control (Janet Jackson album) for primary use. Neither Control (Pedro the Lion album) nor Control (GoodBooks album) surpasses historical significance and popularity of the Janet Jackson album. I don't think I really need to provide viewing stats because numbers may be obvious. There is no other album of similar name right now, and there isn't Control by current generation of singers right now. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedball (American)[edit]

Retarget to disambiguation page Speedball. ;; Speedball (boxing) is a type of punching bag, also used in the United States, while it is more commonly called a "speedbag", it is also called a "speedball", so "American" is a bad disambiguator. 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Good catch, I should have noticed this when closing the RM. Retarget per nom. Jenks24 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're Dead![edit]

Not a deletion request, but a retarget discussion. From You're Dead! to You're Dead. The situation is or we restore You're Dead! (album) to "You're Dead!" or we retarget it to the disambiguation page You're Dead. Per WP:DIFFPUNCT there is no problem with the firstoption, but if it is incorrect, it has no sense to redirect "You're Dead!" to the album if it is "no primary" as stated by the mover/targeter. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC) © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 00:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Lean towards keeping as is. Under normal circumstances a non primary redirect should go to the dab, that's true. A handful of RM outcome exceptions like Thriller (album) going to 1 of several albums is odd. However when there's a WP:DIFFPUNCT type difference of a hyphen, apostrophe, exclamation or question mark then that's slightly different. In this case while Google sources for the You're Dead (album)/You're Dead! (album) are few poor and mixed (not surprisingly since it hasn't even been released yet) and "You're Dead!" is a common exclamation. The film, books and other songs don't seem to have ! ...but then search engines can't distinguish ! ? which is one of the reasons for not relying on them. Not greatly fussed either way but lean to keeping as is, for the time being. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to You're Dead per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to You're Dead! (album) per nom. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 07:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Hermann Chinery-Hesse[edit]

This name uses only one n i.e. Herman Chinery-Hesse not Hermann Chinery-Hesse. I've moved the page to the correct name and the redirects seems to become useless, hence the nomination (I haven't seen any clear documentation on dealing with typos in redirect titles though). Thanks. →Enock4seth (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, very plausible misspelling. Someone who hears the name spoken won't know how many N's there are in it. Siuenti (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Masade, Bekeme[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, G6 by RHaworth. Housekeeping edit Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was speedy delete CSD G6 (performed by RHaworth) (. non-admin closure) -- TheChampionMan1234 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Redirect resulting from incorrectly titled article move TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 August 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.

Pkhenyan[edit]

This does not appear to be the name of the city in any language, I mostly get results about a restaurant in Russia. - TheChampionMan1234 09:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep as a misspelling/mistranslation that is actually used in published works in English, e.g. [1][2]. This string of letters certainly can't refer to any other notable topic in English (obscure Vladivostok restaurants notwithstanding). 61.10.165.33 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitals of North Korea[edit]

This states that the counntry has more than one capital, when it does not. - TheChampionMan1234 09:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Some countries do have more than one capital, and this is also a reasonable typo. Furthermore redirects do not have to be correct and anyone deliberately using this term is quickly educated by the target article that Pyongyang is the only national capital of North Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

MH170[edit]

Completely different flight (see [3]). - TheChampionMan1234 09:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopian literature[edit]

This should be a red link. Ethiopian literature is certainly not limited to the archaic Ge'ez language. These days, it is mostly in Amharic or English. Kaldari (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I created this redirect back in, er, 2006 as a stop-gap measure when my knowledge of Ethiopia was imperfect, & thought the two were practically identical. Since then I've learned more about Ethiopia -- a lot more -- & were I to do it again, I'd create something along the lines of a disambiguation page, with links to the various languages (e.g. Amhara, Tigrinya, Oromo, Harari, etc.). That still wouldn't remove the need for a page on Ethiopian literature in general. -- llywrch (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better to retarget it to languages of Ethiopia than to make it a separate disambig. But I wouldn't object to deletion either. Siuenti (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Red link Both a disambiguation and pointing to languages are entirely improper. Literature is not even remotely the same thing as language, and anything under the title of Literature of Xxx should be an article detailing all types of literature and providing a history and transcending all the different styles of that country, as well as providing all the historical and cultural connections between all the the languages that have been used in the country over the years. A red link is the best option to encourage people to write this article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation.--Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Zh-stub[edit]

Hardly used, and "zh" means the Chinese language and not the country. - TheChampionMan1234 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It's shorter (i.e., useful); not needed for any other purpose; and zh does not only refer to the language. If anything, it refers to the country and the language only by proxy.
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion, though. — LlywelynII 09:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep certainly the Chinese language is a topic that could heirarchically fall under a China stub category tree -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Calcutta2[edit]

Appears to be the result of an accidental page move. - TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

XHICG-TV[edit]

Result of spelling mistake (since corrected) at Television stations in Guerrero. Should have been XHIGG-TV. No station with this callsign exists in Mexico. Raymie (tc) 04:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

طيز[edit]

Why on earth would anyone come to the English Wikipedia and run a search in Arabic for either penis or buttocks? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. subjects have no particular affinity for any language -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Caudron C.450 Rafale[edit]

Redirect created because target article mistakenly identified the C.450 as the Caudron Rafale. The name is used for a number of Caudron aircraft, but the C.450 is not among them. TheLongTone (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Better still would be an article on the Caidron C.362 as they were all similar, and the C.362 was the progenitor of the series. My original assertion that they were entirely separate may have been incorrect, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talkcontribs) 01:19, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

B2/cafelog[edit]

This should be turned to an article. GZWDer (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • See note on the top of this page: 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 � (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment keep in mind MOS:SLASH avoid slashes if possible, since it makes pages appear like WP:SUBPAGEs, and cause weird messages to occur on talkpages (as the talkpages will be treated as subpages). I would suggest not turning this into an article, but keeping it as a redirect, as the Wordpress article itself says the product is more commonly called "b2" or "cafelog", so cafelog would be the better title (b2 is highly ambiguous). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

Kaenbora[edit]

Not in an indeginous Australian language, because at the target the original word was 'Kambera'. A Google search is also no help and returns merely results from online dictionaries, which also demonstrates the harmfulness of such redirects. - TheChampionMan1234 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Close to Brisbane[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 11:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Queen of Peace Primary School[edit]

Non notable educational institution which isn't even mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

悉尼[edit]

No affiliation for Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 11:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tanya Maree Quattrocchi[edit]

Uncited BLP; not mentioned in target article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - there seems to be no information about Tanya Maree Quattrocchi, the person, nor any reason anywhere why that name should redirect to Criticism of Myspace where there's no mention of Tanya Maree Quattrocchi, nor of any similar name. Parabolooidal (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

國家[edit]

General concept with no affiliation for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 04:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Xarkiw[edit]

What language is this? Not a romanization of Ukranian or Russian, a google search mainly returns results from dictionary sites and Wikipedia mirrors, we'd better delete this before sites mirror this. - TheChampionMan1234 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

British Portland Cement Manufacturers[edit]

A generic title redirecting to a specific company. This should probably point to a trade organization if there is one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) suggest do not included the "Ltd", but the confusion here may suggest this is an exception Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a likely search term. "About 233,000 results" on Google, searhing with quote marks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • comment if this is kept, documentation should be added -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. In 1911 the British Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd. was formed by the addition of a further 35 companies, creating a company with an initial 80% of the British cement market. See also: Category:Cement companies of the United Kingdom, where this is apparently the only sufficiently notable cement company in the UK to have an article about it. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

Eat out[edit]

Delete. It makes no sense to create soft redirect for common English words or phrases. It is acceptable for jargon (technical, sports, ...) which doesn't get an article but makes articles on the subject sometimes hard to understand; but to use it for regular English words is not what Wikipedia is intended for. Fram (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not delete it, let's turn it to an internal redirect to one of the two common definitions - either Restaurant or Cunnilingus. Following the principle of least surprise, I suggest either the former or a disambiguation page. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with VQuakr. This is a common term people use and may look it up on this site. We should include it at least somewhere. Redirecting it to Restaurant would be appropriate, as opposed to deleting it. Tinton5 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
"common term people use" doesn't equal "something people look up" of course. I note you also created Raspy. How many thousands of other adjectives or common word combinations do you believe should be soft redirects? Or why these and not others? Creating a few haphazardly seems strange... Note that we at the moment only have some 1200 Category:Redirects to Wiktionary, most of them not for common words. Changing redirects to wiktionary from soemthing exceptional to something commonplace shouldn't be done at a whim, but probably deserves a wider discussion to see what most people think is acceptable and what isn't. Fram (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The above I agree with. Retargeting to Eating out (disambiguation). Tinton5 (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That retarget obviously makes sense, so no problem with this result. Fram (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Windows 7 replacement[edit]

Vague synonym, and not the only OS that replaces Windows 7. - TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete as vague synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete a lot of people would say the upcoming Windows 9 is the proper replacment. Others would say Android or Linux or ChromeOS or OSX -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, unlikely search term � (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Taiguo[edit]

No affinity for Romainzed Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Donkey meat[edit]

Makes no sense. - TheChampionMan1234 05:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the opening line of the Donkey article; "The donkey or ass, Equus africanus asinus,[1][2] is a domesticated member of the horse family, Equidae." And people do eat the meat of a donkey. 'nuff said. Tandrum (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Donkey#Economic_use where it's discussed how donkeys are also raised for meat.--Lenticel (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. 09:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Empire Center for New York State Policy[edit]

I think this redirect should be deleted. The Empire Center for New York State Policy and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research are separate think tanks, both in New York. At the time this redirect was created, they were affiliated, but according to this article, the Empire Center formally spun off from Manhattan [5] Safehaven86 (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Idioma portugués[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, G7. by User:CactusWriter Lenticel (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish is not Portuguese. - TheChampionMan1234 04:00, 22 August 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.

Languages of South Korea[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 22#Languages of North Korea - TheChampionMan1234 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk[edit]

Inappropriate redirect to project space. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. The reference desk is exactly the sort of project space page that new and inexperienced users need to be able to find quickly and easily without having to first learn about namespaces. To me this is a more significant consideration in this case than the slight chance of confusion for people looking for encyclopaedia articles. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that this redirect was established by consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 8#Wikipedia Reference Desk. I will ping the people who commented in that discussion when I next get time. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I've left a message on the talk page of all registered users who contributed to that discussion. I didn't leave a message on the talk page of the IP as they have no contributions recorded since 2013 and so messages may not reach the relevant person. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep While technically project space, the page isn't for the project but for our readers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, if there has ever been a harmless cross-namespace redirect, this is one. (Until a time when the Wikipedia Reference Desk becomes a notable topic, which I hope is never). Note that I participated in the previous discussion and received a ping from Thryduulf.Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox nrhp[edit]

Non-useful cross-namespace redirect Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR target is pipework and not usable to a reader, no information about NRHP can be readily gleaned from it as it is not a nav template -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cecal pellets[edit]

Inappropriate CNR - TheChampionMan1234 00:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Srong delete This will improperly transclude an entire article if it were used. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

朝鮮民主主義人民共和国[edit]

Not especially Chinese/Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21[edit]

Faith based melee[edit]

It seems to me that a "faith based melee" can involve any faiths in any region, and should not redirect solely to this particular topic. bd2412 T 20:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete. The origin of this would appear to be a 2006 episode of The Daily Show in 2006 [6], supported by the redirect dating from then. It doesn't seem to have gained currency as a phrase though, with only one other use in this sense I can quickly find, also dating to 2006. It does appear to be used in the context of the Demon's Souls game, though it seems to be far too specific to make a good redirect there in a general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am fine with deleting it. bd2412 T 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Grcija[edit]

Country with no affinity for Serbo-Croatian. - TheChampionMan1234 08:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep this is Macedonian, which has an affinity for Northern Greece (and vice versa) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per 65.94.169.222 and �. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as a transcription of a related language. Siuenti (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Kamayama[edit]

Korean-language topics no affinity for Japanese, especially Romanised Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20[edit]

Gift Wrapped[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 a disambig so now out of scope for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of results for this. Is Gift Wrapped (album) really the primary topic? If not, a disambiguation page should be created. Launchballer 16:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - No it's not - that's why I moved it. Disambiguation page required. Unreal7 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Good enough for me. The question is, what do we do about Gift Wrapped (album)? We have articles on three albums under that name.--Launchballer 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That's actually pretty simple. We can just move Gift Wrapped (album) to Gift Wrapped (The Arrogant Worms album), and then point the redirect left at Gift Wrapped (album) to Gift Wrapped. Besides the disambiguation page currently at Gift Wrapped, there's only one page pointing to Gift Wrapped (album), {{The Arrogant Worms}}, so there aren't a bunch of links to clean up. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 07:44, 21 August 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.

Capital of Hong Kong[edit]

There is no capital of Hong Kong. 84.141.7.42 (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree per being Hong Kong resident for life and never heard of a capital existing in the city. 野狼院ひさし (t/c) 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there is the possible target of the legislature... Legislative Council Complex -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hong Kong was a territory in its own right and its capital was the "City of Victoria" q.v. which is now known as "Central". While Hong Kong is now part of China, Chinese states have capitals, so there is nothing incongruous there. Remember this is a redirect, not a cited fact that needs references etc, and as such if it is useful it should be kept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Retarget or Keep. This should not be a red link per Rich Farmbrough and also because this is a very likely thing for people to look up (between 90 and 160 hits in each of the first seven months of 2014 for example), so deleting this would harm the encyclopaedia by making it much harder for people to find what they are looking for. I think that Victoria City would make the better target, as the third sentence of that article starts "It was deemed to be the capital of Hong Kong from 1842 until the 1997 handover" (with two references) whereas the word "capital" is not used in the Central, Hong Kong article. The present target is not though wrong and keeping it is a much better option than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Struck and change to retarget to Victoria City, with reference to the historical context provided by Rich and Thryduulf. If possible, do put a note explaining that context for the uninitiated. Finally trout welcome for not knowing this despite "being Hong Kong resident for life". 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"B-Double-O-T-Y[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 deleted by Shirt58 as WP:G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea what the initial double quote is doing there... Fram (talk) 08:02, 20 August 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.

John Bunnnion[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 deleted by Alexf as WP:G7. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many typos to be a reasonable alternative spelling. "Bunion" or "Bunnion" may be somewhat plausible, but "Bunnnion" with three Ns in a row? Fram (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Its only one typo, "Bunnion" was the spelling used in the indulgence issued by the king, for example, and in the muster rolls, and this spelling exists in parish registers back to 1581. All the best: Rich Farmbrough11:38, 20 August 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.

Ronald Reagan Election Eve Speech "A Vision For America"[edit]

Unlikely search term and a lot of typing. - TheChampionMan1234 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Redirects are not just for search terms. This was an article, and text may have been re-used. Moreover Cool URIs Don't Change. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
    17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough, who also didn't remind you that typing the exact page name is far from the only way to get to a page - it is the top search result for "A Vision for America" for example. That said, if the target can be refined to the relevant section of the article that would be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

한채영- Han Chae Yeong[edit]

Another mixed foreign/English name. - TheChampionMan1234 02:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Move to 한채영 without leaving a redirect behind; the appropriate redirect should only contain Korean, not mixed such as this. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There would not be a need to move this since any registered editor could simply create the suggested redirect right now.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Update this can now be deleted as "한채영" has been created. Unlikely redirect. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Neither new nor harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough. Deletion would bring no benefits and, as there may be links to this title from outside Wikipedia, there is a chance it might break things and unnecessarily harm Wikipedia or another project. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • To make it explicit, my support for this redirect is independent of the existence of "한채영". Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Potpoupri (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 withdrawn by nominator. Per the two arguments below. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo. Has existed for years so not eligible for R3. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it appears Potpoupri is an alternative spelling/pronunciation/word for potpourri. Strange but true. Either that or it s a plausible typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep, when a redirect has existed for years we need evidence of it actually causing harm or a detailed explanation why it will (not may) cause harm in future before we should even consider deleting it and we have neither here. When, as Rich Farmbrough demonstrates, the redirect is plausible the burden for deletion becomes significantly higher. That burden becomes much higher again when, as here, the stats show evidence of use. So to sum up we have evidence of plausibility and of use and no evidence of harm, so deletion would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 23 August 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.

I'd like to reopen this discussion, how should it be done? I can't agree with Rich Farmbrough's assumption that it's "an alternative spelling/pronunciation/word for potpourri" (could he please provide a single valid source?). The references found on Google are the result of other sites cloning wikipedia content. In fact it's wikipedia that's making this completely implausible typo look like a plausible one. Wikipedia should not be a source of information that's clearly wrong. —capmo (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • You need to start a new nomination, clearly linking to this one, with a clear reason why you want it deleted. For the record, if you do nominate it I will again recommend it is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Trolly Line[edit]

Delete as unlikely and misspelled redirect - the redirect was created (it appears) only because an editor was confused about the technical limitations of article names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Bang Bang (telenovela)[edit]

The redirect should be deleted cause it's inappropriate to redirect a TV show to one of the actors. At last there's no further information about the telenovela provided in Fernanda Lima. So a red link would be the better choice and an appropriate solution in this case. 84.141.7.214 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Intrasomatic model[edit]

delete: This was deleted in February 2013 but was created as a redirect to a passage which does not mention this obscure and non-notable notion. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Capital of Macau[edit]

There is no official capital of Macau. - TheChampionMan1234 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your compelling evidence. It's not only a pointless but a fallacious redirect which has to be deleted. --84.141.7.214 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there is the legislature Macau Legislative Assembly Building -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course but what has that got to do with the subject? For example: there are legislative buildings in Hong Kong too - but (assuming that capitalcapitol) there are no capitals - either of Hong Kong or of Macao. --84.141.7.42 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "o" and "a" is a minor difference, where redirects are frequently created. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seúl[edit]

No affinity for Spanish. - TheChampionMan1234 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Visitor interpretive center[edit]

There are many many places called "visitor interpretive center" - this is essentially a generic name redirecting to a specific place Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comment. Though I did not find any others with this exact name, this is a reasonable concern. Perhaps a stronger alternative would be a DAB page? Or possibly a List of visitor interpretive centers. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • A list might be appropriate, but my concern with either that or a disambiguation is that it essentially becomes a list of parks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Valid concerns, both... Thanks again, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not we are agreed that the existing target (Adirondack Park Agency visitor interpretive centers) is subpar. --84.141.7.42 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There is not reason to delete this redirect, none at all. It doesn't matter if we have very similar redirects already, this one would still be useful if directed to the right target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Mau̯ː˧˥ tsɤ˧˥.tʊŋ˥[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment what is this, some form of IPA or similar notation? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like mojibake to me, but might just be vandalism. The creator was a long-term vandal who still uses IPs and throw-away accounts to trash articles and editors. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: mojibake at best. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
+1: useless redirect: not even a moji baker would rummage an encyclopedia for that "character" sequence. --84.141.7.214 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is perfectly valid IPA. We don’t keep redirects from pronunciations, so delete it anyway. Just stop calling characters you don’t recognize mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I had no idea what it is, but I knew it certainly wasn't mojibake. - TheChampionMan1234 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment also, its not IPA, because at the target it says that the IPA is "(/ˈmaʊ zəˈdʊŋ," - TheChampionMan1234 03:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The form in the article is a broad transcription, and this one is narrow. They are both IPA. Gorobay (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

英文[edit]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 23:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete while Britain did rule Hong Kong, and English is still legal in HK, the British Empire ruled many parts of the world, so this is best suited to Wiktionary, as only core parts of Britain should be considered for foreign language redirects. (and possible considerations for native languages of USA/AUS/CAN/NZ) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

China Aviation Development Foundation[edit]

Related, but not the same. - TheChampionMan1234 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. - 華碩電腦股份有限公司[edit]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 18#Acer Inc. - 宏碁股份有限公司. - TheChampionMan1234 23:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

French Polish[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. Though this formulation could be argued to be misleading, as per the nomination, the consensus is that it is a valid redirect. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Misleading, suggests a variety of Polish language spoken in France]] � (talk) 20:52, 18 August 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.

Microsoft 7[edit]

Unlikely search term, MSFT has had many 7s and many 2000s � (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: with most significant word left out these redirects are pointless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete too ambiguous for dab or retarget.--Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of The Wiggles' video and audio releases[edit]

Filmography/Videography and Discography pages already exist, there would not be a case where they need to be combined like this AngusWOOF (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: this redirect is a result of page move from title where the article resided for 2 years, and the title is completely harmless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sky girl[edit]

Retarget to Sky Girls, perhaps, I mean I could not find any uses of this term referring to flight attendants. - TheChampionMan1234 08:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil Aviation Administration of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea[edit]

WP:REDLINK. Completely different topic at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I may have put the redirect in place because Air Koryo and the DPRK Civil Administration are the same thing, but if that's so I'll need to get a source to confirm it WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Acer Inc. - 宏碁股份有限公司[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) 13:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant title. - TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom: both native and international names together form an implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete even if we were to account for foreign language users using 宏碁股份有限公司 I see no reason why anyone would use that and the English name at the same time.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 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.

Business Machine[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) 13:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Computers aren't the only machines used in the workplace. - TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I wonder if "Business machine" is a historical definition? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 18 August 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.

Moskvá[edit]

What language is this? Not romanised Russian, google is no help. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Moskva" is romanized Russian. When I look at ru:Москва the article starts with "Москва́" so I'm guessing the "á" is there to show where the stress is in the word: Russian_language#Orthography WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Сербия[edit]

Not especially Russian. - TheChampionMan1234 02:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

Malik Newman[edit]

  • I have changed the redirects of those to pages to Basketball. --Nba-fan-11 — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nba-fan-11, the point of a redirect is to point the reader to a page that has encyclopedic content related to the subject and that demonstratees the notability of the subject. You need to point the redirect to a page that has content about the players. I think the only page on WP with information about those players is 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship. However, that page does not establish notability because it is largely unreferenced. You either need to create the biographies or beef up a page on WP with WP:RS that establish sufficient notability for the pages to point a redirect at that page. If you are going to go through that much trouble, you might as well find references for their own biographies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, I don't know where these should redirect to but basketball certainly is not the place,--67.68.22.129 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK or stubbify -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or stubbify per IP. TonyTheTiger, you did your research on these people; why don't you write two short stubs? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete or stubbify per above. If someone wants to write a (sourced) stub or article, great, but at this point a redirect with no article doesn't serve a purpose and misleads readers who see a blue link and (quite reasonably) assume they will be able to learn more about the person. Rikster2 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Microsoft Windows[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) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect, seems unused. There were no incoming links until yesterday. Keφr 18:32, 16 August 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.

Interwar hungary[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

deletion, there already exists a properly-capped redirect for this, but this miscap is the one that shows up in the search bar. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Improperly capitalized? So what, really. No reason to delete. Kintetsu, I suggest you read through the reasons to not delete before you nominate redirects in the future. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Read it, still find it worthwhile to nominate. I suggest you not be so smug, Oiyarbepsy.
The search bar is almost irrelevant. Not everyone uses the search bar to find things. When we delete redirects, an unknown number of people across the internet click links and see "page not found" or "page deleted" messages instead of the relevant article. There is increasing awareness that it's the destination site's fault for killing links and not the source site's fault for linking to them. Seeing not found messages reflects badly on Wikipedia, and in this case, provides zero benefit whatsoever. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:11, 17 August 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.

IPhone nano[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) 17:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 08:55, 16 August 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.

August 15[edit]

Mustaneros[edit]

Mustaneros, a redirect page to correct a misspelling of another page, may be removed now as it links to no other page needing it to be used and is of no use in itself.Asiaticus (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I've asked for a histmerge, as this mispelling contains the edit history for the correct spelling's article. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Histmerge has been completed. (NOTE: Histmerge usually leaves a redirect behind. and WP:MAD a histmerge is needed anyways) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't history merge (if it hasn't been done yet). This is a rather likely misspelling and so shouldn't be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect and history merge: I have heard of "Mustangers" or "Mustang runners" (English) all my life, but though"Mustaneros" is not common, it has some use Mesteñeros is seen more often, as here. Both should probably redirect to Mesteñeros. Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: plausible misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Grey's Law[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 retargeted to Clarke's three laws#Grey. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer covered at the target page, nothing to redirect to. Paradoctor (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Clarke's three laws, where it is also mentioned (also uncited). Or simply revert the removal – the term is used off-site, so it is probably wiser to wait until someone finds its origin then to remove mention. FWIW {{citation needed}} was added less then a year ago. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Knowing about Clarke, a revert would violate WP:R#DELETE 1,2,5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talkcontribs) 12:56, 18 August 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.

XHSS-TV[edit]

The creation of this redirect was part of a mistake in Template:Hermosillo TV. The actual station is XHHSS-TV. There is no station with this call sign in Mexico according to the Federal Telecommunications Institute station list. Raymie (tc) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Azteca Trece for now: this may be a plausible typo, and stats count is high. Although most hits certainly come from the template Raymie have fixed, clean hit count would be needed to make sure the redirect is not linked off-site. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Moropant Pingle[edit]

This redirects Moropant Pingle to Moropant Trimbak Pingle. The latter was a Maratha military figure in the 1600s; the former could (and does, such as here) refer to a 20th century RSS figure. However, the RSS figure does not currently have an article, but could do in the future; therefore, his name should currently be a redlink. Ergo, this redirect needs deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment RSS means Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a charitable group in India. Vanamonde, please don't assume that we know this.
  • Redlink to encourage article creation and because current redirect is deceptive and leads to bad links. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oiyarbepsy, it was a careless mistake on my part, not an assumption. Apologies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate or keep, seems to be a plausible search term for the current target. Siuenti (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Siuenti, correct me if I am wrong; but I was under the impression that DAB pages cannot contain redlinks, in which case the 17th century guy would be the only entry, thus rendering the DAB page useless. Keeping would mean we are actively propagating an error. Or am I missing something? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, this is the same guy as Moropant_Pingley right? So that makes two blue links for a Dab, but maybe there should be a hatnote instead. I don't see why Moropant Pingle is an erroneous search term for Moropant Trimbak Pingle. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I withdraw this nom? yes, it's this guy; Moropant_Pingley. So a DAB page would work. I thought I had tried all spelling variants to find a blue-link, it looks like I had not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine with a hatnote, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Duwang[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) 17:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion per WP:RFD#D2.

Duwang is a meme in fansubbing/scanlation circles relating to a particularly bad JoJo's Bizarre Adventure translation. (if you must know more, scroll down to Duwang here) It's not really right to point it to internet meme or JJBA because it's not really about either one of them, and neither article talks about this specific meme.

I'm not sure a reasonable target exists. Even an article about corrupted translations would probably not be quite right as this is a specific instance. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: misleading redirect, no relevant mention is available on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - not mentioned at target; the word only appears as the name of the guy who founded this monastary Likir Monastery; but I read it as just his first name, and thus probably not an appropriate target? WilyD 10:23, 15 August 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.

Chinese (Taiwan) diplomatic missions[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term. Particularly the use of the word "Chinese" at the beginning. - TheChampionMan1234 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: it is not that unlikely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term is the standard, not likely, for an excellent reason: we don't want to fuck over a small but noticeable percentage of our readership for no reason whatsoever. This is a plausible (if perhaps unlikely) search term. WilyD 10:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't this disambiguate between missions to Taiwan and missions from Taiwan? In any case, keep per aboves -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 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.

Chokolade[edit]

Not especially Danish. - TheChampionMan1234 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: it has no right to exist on English Wikipedia as Danish name per WP:FORRED, and two typos are too much for misspelled English name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for, which is the purpose of redirects, and makes encyclopaedias useful. There's no reason to fuck over the readership for no encyclopaedia gain, (or certainly, the delete arguments don't explain why they want to do this). WilyD 10:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There is an excellent reason to "fuck over the readership for no encyclopaedia gain": WP:NOTDICT. We have Wikitionary for these things, and the term "Chokolade" ha no encyclopedic meaning in English whatsoever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Northern Spain[edit]

WP:REDLINK could not find an article on the subject. - TheChampionMan1234 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you paying too much for your car insurance?[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 deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Added with the edit summary " Dennis frequently employs this as a gag in panel shows" . As it is not mentioned on the article, I don't see how it is sufficiently noteworthy.. Considering that the line is a routine part of thousands of advertisements, it won't be primarily from this show that people will encounter it. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair point - no point wasting any time on a RfD. G7d.--Launchballer 09:39, 15 August 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.

Floorball-vs-team end[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) 17:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Unused cross-namespace redirect. Artefact left behind after template was accidentally created in mainspace and then moved into template space. DH85868993 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:XNR to a formatting template, cannot be used for navigation. Not readable by an ordinary user -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this CNR violates well-established pseudo-namespace convention for templates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:02, 15 August 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.

August 14[edit]

미셸오바마[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 WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:13, 15 August 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.

Piotr Żyżelewicz[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. There is useful information at the target and a case for WP:RED deletion has not been made. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

He also played in other bands � (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: apparently Piotr Żyżelewicz is best known for his participation in this band, so redirect is warranted. Other notable bands he played in could be listed in his entry within target article, which is more then enough to address the nom's issue. As I gather, there are several articles about him in Polish music-related media, which on its own does not allow to stubify the title immediately (narrow topical and geographical scope of sources) or delete the redirect per WP:RED, but warrants tagging redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, per above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 9 August 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) 00:45, 14 August 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.

T:SINGLE[edit]

Unused cross-namespace redirect. Keφr 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. A standard psuedo-namespace template shortcut. This shortcut was previously nominated for deletion three times, and was kept each time. - Eureka Lott 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing {{tl|Oneref}} is only one character longer, for one. {{SINGLE}} and other variations are free to create. Do I have to repeat it every single time? Keφr 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: no more or less valid deletion rationale was presented. While term "SINGLE" is ambiguous (there are single issue warnings, templates for singles, etc.), page history does not reveal any confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete this pseudo-namespace is not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 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) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 'keep. Convenient, which is a reason for a redirect of this nature. "not needed" is in a sense true of every shortcut--we could always write them out in full. "NOTAGAIN" can be a valid argument--because of variable attendance here, sufficient nominations can delete anything; it's accepted at afd that too many are a bad practice, though it has proven incapable of numerical definition. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Convenient for whom? Literally nobody uses these particular two redirects, if backlinks and visit counters are any indication: one visit every few days is just a web crawler, and the only backlinks come from deletion nominations. The "we could always write them out in full" argument is a strawman — I am not arguing against shortcuts in general. Keφr 10:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

IPhone 6[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 to delete, default to keep. Furthermore, no information has been added which would make this deletion any more likely than the last few times. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is the 4th Nomination for RFD. See 1st, 2nd, 3rd nomination for reason. I want that page to be deleted. CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is no such product, no launch date, and no information to provide to readers. This redirect is unhelpful and confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Are we really going to rehash this again? The last discussion took a month and a half to close and it is not even two months cold yet. Do we really need to continue to disrupt this redirect with this pointedness? To be clear WP:CRYSTAL is only a guideline about article content. It does not, however, prohibit useful redirects, especially a redirect from a term that has gotten massive coverage. How much coverage? The latest google search brings up 77 Million results, all of which link the term "iPhone 6" with the "iPhone" line of devices. Now how can a Wikipedia redirect ignore such a massive amount of coverage? This is turning out to be a classic example of gaming the system and wikilawyering, in order to prevent the redirect from serving its function.
  • Some very notable examples of articles that link the term "iPhone 6" to the iPhone include: Forbes, International Business Times, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Bloomberg, The Daily Mail, Yahoo, India Today, The Telegraph, and many more. Not only are these not rumor sites, but these are very reliable sources, and these are all from this past week.
  • Its time to stop this charade and let the redirect do its work. Stop disrupting Wikipedia for very minor issues. A redirect is not hurting anyone, so just Back away from the horse, its dead already.--JOJ Hutton 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

speedy or snow keep. It is obvious that the term is used.It is less obvious to me why we do not have an article on it--if any future product is certain to be real, this one is. In the meantime we need at once a redirect. There are real problems at WP that need cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep for two reasons. First, no deletion rationale provided. Second, This is the third RFD in six months. Trying again and again and again until one gets the result they want is disrupty and WP:POINTy. Resolute 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - obvious search term, sends readers to what they're looking for, and at this point we want to discourage creation. No apparent encyclopaedic rationale for deletion. WilyD 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Protect. Nothing has changed since previous discussions. --erachima talk 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I meant the precise reverse, exactly as I stated. This is a clear candidate for Category:Protected redirects due to the continued edit warring and disruption related to it. --erachima talk 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is protected because for keeping the "temporarily soft redirect" with RFD template to prevent adding spetaculations. "Nothing has changed" is not a sufficient reason. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker
    04:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems to be an abuse of process, if the first, second, and third time didn't merit a change or deletion - why should it now? Nominator should know better and simply wanting the page deleted for no other reason is incredibly disruptive. Stop wasting our time already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Windows 9 now have 1.15 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said (BusinessNewsDaily, Yahoo, Recode)! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?! This discussion will end up like Windows 9. CloudComputation Talk freely
    CloudTracker
    01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • P.S. This is Wikipedia, not Google. or Bing. Windows 9 was salted right after the RFD closed as delete even 1.15 Billion results were found in Google. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • More reasons: This redirect is misleading people who is finding info for the upcoming iPhone. This redirect will not be harmful once Apple officers have told that iPhone 6 is coming and the Shipping date. And Per the comment below. CloudComputation Talk freely
        CloudTracker
        10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • More reasons: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects are means of leading readers to information. A redirect that is not doing so is misleading and harmful, instead of being useful. It sends the reader after a wild goose chase: He or she peruses 58 pages (A4 pages) and finds nothing, eventually realizing that his time is wasted. It is better to let readers' search for iPhone 6 to reach the search page, where they immediately realize no such article exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Codename Lisa, people looking for iPhone 6 on Wikipedia will instead get redirected to a page that has nothing about what they're meant to look for, we don't want to mislead our readers, do we? - TheChampionMan1234 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment CloudComputation forgot one little thing when he/she made the comparison of the "iPhone 6" redirect to the "Windows 9" redirect. When doing a Google search, you need to use "Quotes" in order to refine the search and get the exact search results that you are looking for. Case in point, when the Google search is conducted using actual "quotes", the result is not in the billions, but a few million. Thats a massive 12 to 1 comparison of the two searches. --JOJ Hutton 13:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • What exactly does it change? How does this 12 to 1 count change the fact that both "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6" are not covered in Wikipedia, and that we have absolutely no target for both redirects? Obviously, all people searching for "iPhone 6" did type " 6" because they did not want to get to "iPhone" article. P.S.: 48,500,000 to 6,200,000 is actually less then 8:1, but who cares... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Again Oh and those of you using WP:CRYSTAL as some sort of reason for deletion should actually read what it says, especially the part that says Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Good Day.--JOJ Hutton 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Addition Given the fact that last month, this redirect alone averaged around 500 article views a day and this month the views have increased, its obvious that this redirect needs to go somewhere, instead of simply be deleted. In fact, I would argue that the amount of information coming out about this product is so unprecedentedly massive, that we may need to create the article anyway, well ahead of the announcement date in September.--JOJ Hutton 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, stop flooding! 4 comments in sequence...
      Where can I read a product announcement about iPhone 6? Where can I read any information about iPhone 6 on Wikipedia? Redirects exist with a single purpose: to get reader to the information he looks for. Until Wikipedia contains information about iPhone 6, there is nowhere to redirect to. Of these 500 daily viewers exactly 0 (zero) found information they were searching.
      Massive amount of information? Please, point me to any single reliable source whose statement about iPhone 6 is more or less credible. All of this massive amount of information can't be included per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Last time, I said delete. Everyday 500 users (As what JOJHutton said) can't find their desired information about the iPhone Six. JOJHutton, stop it! I promise, this is the last discussion if you agree with Lisa, Czarkoff, TC1234 and me. A redirect shouldn't be an placeholder. Link to related AN/I notice: Click here CloudComputation See also: 3rd nomination Talk freely
        CloudTracker
        00:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural keep Nominator offers WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no listed reason, and lists prior nominations that failed to delete it (so all previous reasons have failed). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Reason listed on my comment. Find the reason. I nominated this not only for WP:IDONTLIKEIT but the redirect is definitely a disruption. It misleads 500 users. Speedy keep is no good for readers. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      12:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "find it" is not a reason, we're not supposed to be mind readers, trying to interpret what parts of previous nominations apply to your current nomination -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The reason is not to "find it"! Reason/Rationale here: This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid either. Particularily after previous AfD ended with "no consensus". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It isn't a NOTAGAIN, since the nominator didn't provide sufficient reasoning. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is. Reason provided on your comment. It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, instead, you're favors keeping because it's the 4th nomination? I'm sure when the iPhone 6 is officially introduced the 5th nomination is running but will be ended a few days after all. CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep We should discourage wikilawyering and pointy nominations. Besides, a google search shows that the web is abuzz about the gadget.--Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure! And what does it change? We have no information to redirect people to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Uh, right. That's the point: "iPhone 6" redirects people to the page on the iPhone, which tells them by omission that the iPhone 6 has yet to be announced. Which answers their question. The alternative is that "iPhone 6" take them to WP:SALT, which does the same thing but in a less helpful fashion. --erachima talk 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, lack of information at iPhone tells nothing: the page may have been vandalized, information may have been moved elsewhere without a notice, etc. Deletion and creation protection, on the other hand, indeed would inform readers of lack of material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you think the page might be vandalized and prefer the technical error message because you are well-acquainted with the behind-the-curtains of Wikipedia. The casual reader will figure out their answer much more quickly from the the fact that the page on the iPhone says there are five iPhones than to an apparent technical error message. They're both ultimately acceptable methods, but principle of least astonishment says that we take people to articles rather than error messages whenever possible. --erachima talk 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
          • How come it's wikilawyering? Provide a reason! Wikilawyering is just, using WP policies beyond WP:COMMONSENSE. In addition, This redirect misleads 500 readers a day. There is no such spetaculations for iPhone 6 in the iPhone article, so readers don't get what they find. Instead of redirecting, how about telling them there's no such article to persuade them to find another websites for spetaculations? 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment After some IP replaced the redirect with a copyvio article (that I have revdeleted), I have semiprotected the redirect for a short time. I don't see much harm in the redirect being there and a proper article made soon, when information is available. —Kusma (t·c) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with erachima, I think it's more astonishing to be taken to an article which has no information about what you are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh Look More iPhone 6 articles [8], [9], [10]. And these are just today. All of them link the iPhone 6 to the iPhone. So its better to have this redirect that follows what the reliable sources say, than to have nothing at all. This is obviously not going to be deleted. Time to close and move on.--JOJ Hutton 18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. All the keep arguments given in the previous RFDs and this RFD still apply; with the last RFD, that RFD was closed just a short time ago---what has changed since then to justify this RFD nomination as more than a spam nomination to try to force through a deletion through repeated nomination? —Lowellian (reply) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Simce the last nomination had no consensus, a new consensus can be reached by renominating while some information has added or changed. But the problem is, the iPhone article do not have any spetaculations for iPhone 6 so they can't find what they want without knowing it immediately. If it is an "no such article" page they can save their precious time to find another sources with such spetaculations. Do you want to see 500 readers getting misled? (This info is not provided in 3rd nomination,). And 5 votes for keep because 4th RFD?? See WP:NOTAGAIN. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      01:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • First off, it's you who keep saying that 500 people are being "mislead". There is no indication that anyone is being "mislead". The fact remains that anyone doing a search of "iPhone 6" is literally getting the very information that every reliable source confirms, that the iPhone 6 is an iPhone. That is why we have the redirect, and why anyone searching that term will be redirected to the iPhone. In addition, the argument that the iPhone article doesn't contain any information on the iPhone 6 is misleading. Not only does the redirect tell people that the iPhone 6 is an iPhone, which is what all the sources say, but it also is not one of the "reasons for deletion of a redirect". JOJ Hutton 03:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • There is no such iPhone. You can know it by visiting http://apple.com/. The iPhone article have just one iPhone 6 reference - The Guardian. But a no such article page can persuade them to find another page. This is Wikipedia, not Bing, nor Google. Only official sources are the most realible sources. Others are just rumor sites, even if they're major sites (Like Yahoo). CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
        • In addition Redirecting is not a helpful placeholder. The salted "NO SUCH PAGE" page prevents further redirects. Once announced, Administrators will be asked to unsalt and create the article. Until then, redirects are disruptive. CloudComputation Talk freely
          CloudTracker
          00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
          • There is no such "announced" phone, but every reliable source says that there is such a phone and many have pictures that prove it. We go with reliable sources, even if its just a redirect at this point.--JOJ Hutton 01:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh Look I nearly forget the iPhone article cannot add any spetaculations for any unannounced products under the WP:CBALL Policy, so, literally, readers sure can't find what they want without knowing it immediately. If there's any spetaculations for iPhone 6 at the iPhone article, that's fine. But I'm talking about Spetaculations are considered disruptive under the WP:CBALL policy. So, basically, under WP:CBALL, the Redirect target article is prohibited to add any spetaculations about the redirect title, since "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.", readers can't find what they want. The realible sources may provide useful info, though. CloudComputation Talk freely
              CloudTracker
              10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow creation and give the device it's own article, the next generation of this deviced is confirmed by too many sources to count. 75.151.153.97 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 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.

August 13[edit]

Membrane Theory[edit]

Deletion. According to a discussion I have recently had with Polytope24 "membrane theory" is not an accurate alternative term for "M theory" and should not redirect to it. I do not know that there is any other topic to which it should redirect, therefore it appears a deletion may be the best alternative. KDS4444Talk 10:14, 27 July 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) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • (Confused) Oppose, redirect to membrane theory of shells I thought it was clear that there is now a use for the redirect, I don't understand why this was relisted. Paradoctor (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed to Disambiguate per The Whispering Wind. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate - from a GSearch this term is more often associated with M-theory than with shells. The fact that it is not strictly accurate is not a deletion ground; redirects are purely search term and, per WP:RNEUTRAL, it is for the target article to set out the facts. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The original deletion rationale rested on the assumption that there is no other target for the redirect. As this is no longer true, deletion is no longer at issue, only what to do with it. Seeing as there is a +"cell membrane theory" -"shells" -"strings" -"superstrings", as well as a more general membrane theory related to semipermeable membranes +"membrane theory" -"shells" -"strings" -"superstrings", disambiguation looks like the best choice.

Venetian snares/Higgins Ultra Low Track Glue Funk Hits[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) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discovered this by accident: can't see a CSD criteria but article clearly should have been moved without creating this. Despite its age it serves no purpose and should be deleted. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: article only resided for a day there, and the naming scheme makes this title implausible search term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:05, 13 August 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.

Braveheart (Neon Jungle album)[edit]

Neon Jungle have never released an album called Braveheart. Their new album is called "Welcome to the Jungle". Launchballer 09:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that singles and albums were distinctly different things.--Launchballer 23:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently they are, although I didn't know that, and I am pretty sure I am not alone in doing so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete I could see the potential for confusion if the song were a "single" in the sense that it was the A-side of two-sided albums that were distributed. That doesn't seem to be the case, unsurprisingly, so I would have to call this an unlikely search term, and misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 12 July 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) 20:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems to be a mistakenly created redirect. Who would search for this given that it's a song/single, not an album? starship.paint ~ regal 12:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the song article. Someone is searching for this. It has been viewed 222 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 15:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget - plausible search term, and would clearly send readers to what they're searching for. No case for deletion. WilyD 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Whom[edit]

Violates WP:LEAST. Should be bypassed and redirected to Template:Whom2 instead. � (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: any action on this redirect will break 7 years worth of pages, so people inspecting page history will see bizarre statements like this:

    The physical properties of the final gelatin product are better.[whom?]

    Given that "According to whom?" is one of several reasonable things to expect from typing {{whom}}, I don't see the benefits of change outweighting the damage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Template specifications are routinely edited and nobody complains about breaking histories. The reasonable thing to see after typing {{whom}} is [whom?].� (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • "Template specifications" are "routinely edited" without making such huge changes. That's why "nobody complains about breaking histories". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Both good arguments, though I'd suggest that if we're going to follow Ï¿½'s recommendation, it would be better to simply move Template:Whom2 to Template:Whom. At that point, it might be worth updating uses of Whom2 and deleting that. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 13 July 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) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Template:According to whom is used far more often than either whom or whom2. Do we need whom2 at all? Bots automatically read the relevant things, and rearrange things to a new format, so it wouldn't break articles. I doubt anyone ever types in According to whom, it just a bot that changes Whom into that. Might as well rename it Whom to begin with. Dream Focus 11:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

People's Republic of Kalifornia[edit]

Invented name. TheChampionMan1234 07:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep it's not a novel invention, it's derogatory slang used by some right-wingers against left-winger areas. [11]; the "K" is faux-Russian. There's similar terms for other areas of the country like the People's Republic of Massachusetts [12] or People's Republic of Vermont [13]. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Then current target is inappropriate: it doesn't seem likely that people would use this query to search for information about California. Most likely the search would be intended to reveal the context of this term. Do we have any article where this subject can be mentioned and retargetted to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • This is the article that should be pointed to as "California" covers the sociology of the state, the politics of the state, the government of the state. Since the term in question, PRKal, is a critique of the state as it is, it would seem that it should point to the state article, because it is a term that criticizes big government, the social safety net, taxation, government regulation, government inverventionism, pro-environmental policies, sociological mindset, left-coast liberalism, of the state. IOW, it criticizes the state in its government, sociological whole and body politic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe if there was some kind of article on political perceptions of each state? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There's the more general topic Left Coast, but that only deals with left coast liberalism, and not big government found in the state of California, as it deals with the political bias of the entire western seaboard of central North America -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Politics of California which is probably the best match. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Arguments for keeping are less effective if the phrase isn't mentioned on Wikipedia. Relisting to allow for more opinions, or for incorporation of the phrase somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Robotrain[edit]

No one calls the L line the "Robotrain", not even in New York City. If anything, it is more suitably redirected to Automatic train operation, but the "Robotrain" term is very sporadically used. Epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 1 July 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) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be mentioned at the target article, in which case it can be kept. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Automatic train operation. As a lifetime NYC resident, I hardly believe the term is exclusively used in New York City, but the term was used for trains on the L line because it was the first to have such an overhaul. The 7 line is slated to be next; so if my assertion in the second sentence did not apply, then I would have suggested retargeting to Automation of the New York City Subway. Thus I would retarget per The Whispering Wind. I also have not heard the term in general usage except for some specific newspaper editors (such as the author of the article cited above), but what do I know? I'm not in the loop of such 'hip' terms. Tinlinkin (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ONUS[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 09:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • keep has been used here as abbreviation -- I don;t think that abbreviated redirects in WP space should be judged on the basis of "not used in target article". There is no target article, and such redirects are meant as mnemonics. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, the whole reason I nominated is because I thought that it redirecting there was an error and that it should redirect to a page which says 'the onus is on...' which I couldn't remember the name of, and was hoping that this would unearth it. What exactly is 'onus' an abbreviation for?--Launchballer 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not an abbreviation, but a Latin word for legal concept of "burden" (as in burden of proof). Page you are looking for is onus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: while I would prefer to see this redirect mirroring WP:BURDEN, current target is also appropriate, and this shortcut is used enough to make any changes really damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep' per above. I think "onus" goes nicely with the burden of getting sources which is discussed in the target page. --Lenticel (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ウィキペディア[edit]

Language not particularly relevant TheChampionMan1234 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see a problem with these redirects. Jaqeli 10:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect to an rticle on appriopriate language edition of Wikipedia. � (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete at least two
I have no strong opinion about whether the rest should be kept or deleted. Retargeting to the entry on the language-specific Wikipedia might work for some of these. However it would be problematic for many of the Cyrillic ones because the title is ambiguous as to which language it is but only one of those language-versions has an article (e.g. Вікіпедія where Ukrainian Wikipedia exists but Rusyn Wikipedia does not). quant18 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all: this is English Wikipedia, and the way "Wikipedia" spells in English is easy to find on every single page of English Wikipedia. This is just a well of WP:BADIDEAs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll just expand a bit on "BADIDEAs":
  1. These redirects aid accidential linking exactly where they should not: Russian Wikipedia should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles and talk pages as Russian Wikipedia, not as Википедия. English Wikipedia is supposed to be used by English speakers and should not require knowledge of other languages.
  2. The task of providing translations is not the task of Wikipedia. We have Wiktionary for that.
  3. These redirects are inherently ambiguous – one can't deduce whether the link Википедия is supposed to mean Wikipedia in general or Russian branch of the project. Each of them requires disambiguation, and disambiguating non-English words is not the business of English Wikipedia.
Keeping such redirects means saying that such redirects are OK, and similar redirects may be created. In my opinion, we just should not send such messages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For cases that are spelled correctly, I think retargeting as � suggested would be good. --BDD (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW the following table lists the targets for these redirects according to proposal by �:
Redirect Target Problems?
ウィキペディア Japanese Wikipedia no
Википедиja Bosnian Wikipedia first 8 letters Cyrillic, last 2 – Latin
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Википедию Russian Wikipedia in accusative case
Википедия Avar Wikipedia no
Bashkir Wikipedia
Komi-Permyak Wikipedia
Karachay-Balkar Wikipedia
Lak Wikipedia
Lezgian Wikipedia
Moldovan Wikipedia
Russian Wikipedia
Tatar Wikipedia
Tuvan Wikipedia
Udmurt Wikipedia
Википедија Bosnian Wikipedia no
Macedonian Wikipedia
Serbian Wikipedia
Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia
Вікіпедія Rusyn Wikipedia no
Ukrainian Wikipedia
Уикипедия Bulgarian Wikipedia no
Kazakh Wikipedia
Kyrgyz Wikipedia
Վիքիպեդիա Armenian Wikipedia no
ויקיפעדיע Yiddish Wikipedia partial match
ویکیپدیا ? can't find it
ويكيبيديا Arabic Wikipedia no
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
विकिपीडिया Bihari Wikipedia no
Hindi Wikipedia
Marathi Wikipedia
Nepali Wikipedia
Sanskrit Wikipedia
விக்கிபீடியா ? can't find it
వికిపీడియా ? can't find it
ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ Kannada Wikipedia no
വിക്കിപീഡിയ Malayalam Wikipedia no
วิกิพีเดีย Thai Wikipedia no
ვიკიპედია Mingrelian Wikipedia no
Georgian Wikipedia
維基大典 Chinese Wikipedia no
위키피디아 ? can't find it
위키백과 Korean Wikipedia no
Википеди Chechen Wikipedia no
Chuvash Wikipedia
Hill Mari Wikipedia
Ossetian Wikipedia
Supporters of retarget view (�, quant18, BDD), please specify targets for non-obvious cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
“ویکیپدیا” is the Persian “ویکی‌پدیا” without the necessary ZWNJ. “விக்கிபீடியா” is vikkipīṭīyā instead of Tamil vikkippīṭīyā and “వికిపీడియా” is vikipīḍiyā instead of Telugu vikīpīḍiyā; I don’t know whether these are valid alternative spellings. “위키피디아” (Wikipidia) is well-attested in Korean sources. Gorobay (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume the multitarget versions become disambiguation pages? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Depens on this discussion. I strongly oppose disambiguating foreign language titles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with disambiguating, as the language is relevant to the subject of the article. � (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheChampionMan1234 08:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • delete all per "Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary," which may not be a formal guideline, but it's blinking obvious. Look, people looking in the English Wikipedia for foreign words can be presumed to know what Wikipedia is, so all these links do is provide a bunch of translations. When we get this far out in the orthography it's hard to imagine that people either can decode the word out enough to sound it out, or they can read it outright and therefore don't need our help, or they can't even tell what part of speech they're looking at. These links are thus unnecessary for the first two groups, and unhelpful to the last. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget or disambiguate to appropriate language-specific Wikipedias if they exist, according to Ï¿½'s proposal, as likely search terms for a topic related to the language. Keep the accusative-case Russian one, as it may be encountered in text by someone without the knowledge or keyboard to transform it to nominative. Delete the mixed Cyrillic-Latin one (Википедиja) as unlikely misspelling. Delete the "can't find it"s in the table, except the Korean one 위키피디아 which is common in Google news. And delete the partial title match Yiddish one ויקיפעדיע Siuenti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea. If people are in a Google function, then it certainly makes sense for them to use Google to find the foreign language wikipedia directly rather than trying to route them through us. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We are assuming they are looking for the English Wikipedia article about the foreign language Wikipedia. If they are looking for the foreign language Wikipedia itself then yes, they should be using Google, the proposal isn't designed to help them. Siuenti (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - in general. Where specific language version articles exist, retargetting to those specific versions is preferable, I think. In general, no reason has been presented for deletion, nor do any appear to exist; deletion of these useful navigation links would only serve to damage the functionality/usability of the encyclopaedia. WilyD 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Honor, Courage, Commitment[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) 17:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the US Navy should be the target of this article. The phrase is not mentioned in the article. While the Navy describes these as their core values (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=193), so do the Marines (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/hrom/NewEmployees/AbouttheMarineCorps/Values.aspx). There is also a non-profit veteran's organization with this name (http://www.honorcouragecommitment.org/) which may not be notable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: as far as I know, this wording is not specifically tied to any organization (apart from non-notable non-profit), and the concept is too wide to be worth disambiguation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 15 August 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.

Chumathang[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 deleted to move Chumathang Village there. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has repeatedly and incorrectly tried to apply a CSD tag to this redirect. So I will take it to RfD. No opinion on it myself. That user can comment here if he wishes. Safiel (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry - this is the first time I have tried to speedily delete a redirection page and I have, obviously made a mess of it. However, it clearly needs to be deleted, as Chumathang is a completely separate settlement to Nyoma where one is redirected to. The two towns are about 41 km apart along the Indus river valley. I am sorry to have caused all this inconvenience - please accept my apologies for giving you extra work because of my ignorance. In the meantime, I have created a new page called Chumathang village to fill the gap. sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:34, 13 August 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.

Democratic America[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) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this one. - TheChampionMan1234 01:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most Americans will think of the Democratic Party, which might suggest Blue state or Left coast as possible targets. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete not the Democratic Party of America, not about democracy in the Americas, etc -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Could just as well mean Canada, after all (/snark). Too open-ended to even disambiguate. Mangoe (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: we generally only keep POV redirects when they are not ambiguous. Canada is at least as democratic as US. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Politics of the United States. I'm also open to Delete if we really can't find a viable target. BTW, Democracy in America is a book so it's not a good idea to retarget it there. --Lenticel (talk) 02:09, 14 August 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.

蒙古族[edit]

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

لعبة كرة القدم[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) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Soccer isn’t especially related to Arabic. Gorobay (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete the world cup shows lack of soccer strength in the Arabic world, the game was invented in England, so no significant ties to Arabic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: subject is international. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:38, 13 August 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.

پائولو زامبونی[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) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. This Italian doctor has no connection with Persian. Gorobay (talk) 13:51, 12 August 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.

Malaysia Airlines Timeline[edit]

There is no timeline at the target plus unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yu Song-Suk[edit]

Implausible typo. It should probably be deleted. Sawol (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Or {{R from misspelling}} and a short post on the talk page with a link to this discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aimee Richardson[edit]

Inappropriate redirect. If the actress is non-notable, her article should not misleadingly redirect to the series in which she played a very minor role, but remain a red link.  Sandstein  01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, I didn't recall that. Still, any opinions are welcome. She did get some recent coverage, perhaps enough for a stub?  Sandstein  03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

American Federation[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) 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Over three decades in the USA and I have never once heard "American Federation". It's just as plausible as "United States of Russia". Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia does not have states. It has federal subjects. USA, like Russia, is a federation. American Federation can be used. AbelM7 (talk) 06:35, 18 August 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.

August 11[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive N[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. Performed by Nyttend (talk · contribs). See comment below. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Useless redirect. No one is going to look for this page title. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
I created it by mistake while creating a new archive page. My apologies, yes go ahead and delete it.
Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G6 and G7 criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Redirects created by pagemoves normally aren't deleted, but that's because we don't want to produce linkrot by breaking on-wiki or off-wiki links. When the page existed under an implausible title for just a minute, nobody will have made links to it since its creation, so we won't hurt anything by trashing it. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 12 August 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.

Israel Occupation Forces[edit]

This is a procedural nomination from 24.47.134.133. He blanked the redirect with the summary of "Please delete this page. There is no such organization as the "Israel Occupation Forces," and redirecting this page to the Israel Defense Forces is not accurate and misleading. Thank you," which I have reverted because I don't like empty pages. The IP then left a note on my talkpage saying "the page is a slanderous and derogatory parody of the "Israel Defense forces" (the former page redirects to the latter). The Israel Occupation forces is a nonexistent entity and thus the page is inaccurate and does not belong on wikipedia." Piguy101 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I, myself, am neutral. Piguy101 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: this apprears to be a proper POV redirect with some off-site usage of the term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Please, read before !voting: here, on Wikipedia, we only include material if it is notable. When doing so, we choose neutral article names and maintain neutrality in the article. But some people come to Wikipedia because they look up a biased wording or specially-crafted term from POV material. Instead of ignoring such search queries we redirect them to our neutral articles with neutral titles, discharging this bias. That is: POV redirects are Wikipedia's weapon against POV.Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is a hateful redirect and has no educational or constructive relevance to the IDF. Regarding what Dmitrij D. Czarkoff said; the only people who would claim to have such a POV would be those who incite hate and violence against the Israel DEFENSE forces. I, for one, have never heard, seen, or read the terminology "Israel Occupation forces" other than on the provocative wikipedia page that we are currently discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, please scroll up the page and re-read this vote:" Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces.... " Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk)
Duplicate !vote: 24.47.134.133 (talkcontribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Please read the previous discussions and guideline linked in my posting above, and in Nyttend’s just below. Briefly, a principal purpose of redirects is to make terms that are ‘wrong’, in one way or another, lead readers to an appropriate article nonetheless. That includes not only ‘innocent‘ misspellings but also biased or misleading names, like this one, that should never be used to title an actual article.—Odysseus1479 04:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Our standards for redirects note that blatantly partisan redirects are sometimes appropriate, and the relevant section of those guidelines note that one appropriate use of a partisan redirect is a situation in which "The subject matter of articles [is] represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms". A quick Google search reveals numerous uses of this term to refer to the IDF, so this is clearly the kind of situation covered by the redirects standards. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete Although such redirects may sometimes be appropriate, please enlighten me as to what is appropriate in this case. The google results I found all come from terrorist organizations' websites such as electronicintifada.com aljazeera.com . Do you believe that terrorism's POV is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinamorsi (talkcontribs) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Closing admin, please note that Christina has double-voted. Christina, please note that we have a neutral point of view policy — we try to represent multiple perspectives when they exist, especially in contentious situations such as Israel-Palestinian issues. We need to present the Israeli POV and the Palestinian POV without saying which is the correct one. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • DELETE Dear Nyttend, please note that Christina was not talking about Palestinians. Although many terrorist factions do reside and operate amongst the Palestinians, I believe Christina was speaking specifically about terror groups. Again, there is no clear POV issue at hand; The official and internationally recognized name is Israel Defense Forces. Israel Occupation Forces is a made up name for a made up organization which has no legitimacy in the non-terrorist and/or international vernacular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagleScout (talkcontribs) 03:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) TheEagleScout (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment it can possibly be retargetted to Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep It redirects to the article the person would probably have in mind. Nytten has given what I think is the correct argument about POV redirects. We make them within reason. It's not totally hateful or implausible even for someone with a neutral POV. It is only incorrect according to some but not all Israeli views, and even those do not make it "hateful" . An improper Redirect would be something like "Army of Occupation" IDF without the specification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the real improper redirect would be something like Middle Eastern Murder Force to IDF. Army of Occupation would changed to disambiguation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Bangerz: Reloaded[edit]

Delete, because this project was nothing more than a rumor that has faded as fast as it came about. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Replacement parameter[edit]

PRODed with the reason "I cannot find this topic in the directed article at all". The term indeed does not appear verbatim at the target, though to be fair there is a mention of "replaceable parameters (aka replacement variables or batch file parameters %1, %2, %3, %4, %5, %6, %7, %8, %9, and %0)". But this variability in terminology suggests that this is not really an established term, and perhaps a redirect is not warranted here (WP:RFD#DEL #8 "obscure synonym").

For the record, if this is kept, it should not be marked {{R with possibilities}}; such a trivial topic does not warrant an article, and whether this content is in-scope is already questionable. We have no articles about , $2 and $3 in Unix shells either and not just by accident.

(Apologies for the verbosity.) Keφr 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: apparently it is not obscure at all. I agree that this is not an {{R with possibilities}}, or at least the topic should evolve from its parrent article first. I am not sure that current target is appropriate, but I can't find anything better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, that is some argument for keeping, though that article seems to refer to environment variables in general. Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This article basically shows that this wording is used in this context. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • redirect to Evaluation strategy#Call by name Microsoft is far from the only user of this term, and from what I can tell all it means is that, in an interpretive language, the text value of the parameter is dropped into the expression and then interpreted in place as part of the whole. It is perhaps not exactly what they had in mind in Algol 60 but at any rate the appropriate target is somewhere either in this article or in Parameter (computer programming). Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hm, I don't see the term being used in that article. Can you point us to a source, where it is being used in this context? (I do see your point that someone could adopt an "ad-hoc" usage of the term for this concept, but that's different from being used in the literature over a long time.) There are other semantically related articles like f.e. argv, but I could not find the term being used for this purpose in the literature either. If we can establish alternative meanings, changing the redirect into a disambiguation page would be the proper route to go. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Microsoft and IBM seem to be consistent to name these parameters either replacement parameters or replaceable parameters, whereas Digital Research, Novell and Caldera consistently use(d) the term replacement variables and JP Software (a maker of various powerful alternative command-line processors, and therefore also "authorative" in this regard) consistently calls them batch file parameters. So, while there is no single term used by all, the companies who implemented this feature in their operating systems and/or shells were at least consistent in their own usage over ca. three decades. I do think this warrants a redirect to catch the term. Ideally, it should go to an article about batch file processing in DOS, OS/2 and Windows, but since there does not appear to be a suitable article at present, I parked it in the SHIFT batch command section, which, over time, will become an article of its own and then certainly discuss these parameters in somewhat better details. Another link target could be a generic article also explaining similar parameters in Unix shells. If specifically the term "replacement parameter" would be used also in other contexts, the redirect could become a disamgiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The article about batch file processing is called, quite unsurprisingly, Batch file. What makes it unsuitable? Keφr 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Nothing in general, except for that it does not even mention these parameters at present (unless I'd have overlooked it). Otherwise, I would consider it a better target for the redirect than the SHIFT section in the list of DOS commands. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I have added a short section about these parameters (subject for expansion) to the batch file article and retargetted the redirect accordingly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It is the computer science/programmer community as a whole that is authoritative. One can easily search on the term and see it being used outside the context of MS's products. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, searching the web I only found this term being used in conjunction with the PHP preg_replace function and (but this appears to be more by chance than as a deliberately chosen term) SQL query user parameters. I could not find it used anywhere (except for in its batch parameter meaning) in Wikipedia. In either case, if the term needs to be disambiguated, because it will be used in other articles for other purposes in the future, we can simply change it into a disambiguation page then, like we normally do. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Kehrt[edit]

Non notable minor league ballplayer... doesnt meet the notability requirements for the list page so redirect is unnecessary Spanneraol (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes he does not meet the inclusion criteria and he is not included in the list.Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
He is mentioned in table at Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players#Double-A, which is enough to keep this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has information on him, and notability isn't a criterion for redirects. We sometimes delete redirects to encourage the creation of articles, because redirects can hinder article creation — that's part of a reason for having this redirect, since he shouldn't have an article, and the redirect makes it less likely that someone will create an article about him. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aholic[edit]

delete. As -aholic exists, a search should find the concept anyway. Somewhat confusing, as the word (without hyphen) is never used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep -aholic exists, so aholic can also exist (we shouldn't expect people to be experts at writing dictionaries, if this suffix is important enough to merit a redirect, then this form should also exist). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nonsense. WP:Redirects are cheap, but one that is clearly grammatically wrong and would show up in the default search is not useful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can easily strip it from search results with {{R from typo}} ; whether it is grammatically correct or not is immaterial to the existence of the redirect. Indeed, it is useful because it is not grammatically correct, since not everyone writes dictionaries and grammar books. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    NOTE if -aholic is deleted, then "aholic" can be deleted, but if "-aholic" is kept, then "aholic" should also be kept. IMO. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) (my IP address has rolled over) 09:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: added -aholic to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • czarkoff: You misrepresented the nominator in doing so. The nominator's deletion rationale depends on -aholic being kept. Now nobody will know for sure which of these two is supposed to be deleted or kept. Keφr 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I just added similar redirect, as the discussion with nom and one participant (at that time) was concerning both. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete both per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 and 8: not words, not typos, not mentioned in target. They just confuse readers making them think it is a real word. We just should not redirect suffixes per WP:NOTDICT. And indeed Wiktionary has corresponding article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget all four to the disambiguation page Holic, and expand said disambiguation page's Wiktionary soft redirect to include -aholic and -oholic. Don't delete the versions without a dash because I'm under the impression that people assume typing an initial minus in Wikipedia's search box means "exclude this word" as it does on web search engines. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The suffix "-aholic" is well known in the real world. People may want information about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And where do we provide information about it? Not at the target article, at least. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 11 August 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) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. As Anthony notes, the concept is well known and commonly used to indicate addiction. We can always have a hatnote on Addiction telling readers to go to Wiktionary if they want to read about etymology and other dictionary-type things that won't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oholic[edit]

move (without redirect) to -oholic. Again, a search should find the concept (once the move is done). The word (without the hyphen) is not used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 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) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per nom. Yes, that's what I meant to say: as the IP says, if -oholic should exist, the hyphen-less version also ought to exist. Spelling/punctuation variants, such as the omission of an initial hyphen, ought to have redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Time in Colorado[edit]

Delete. All other bluelinks at {{Time in the United States}} are articles (some minimal, some extensive), and having a bluelink for Colorado makes it appear that no article is needed for the state. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: I don't see an encyclopedic topic here. Apparently there are no time-related nuances in Colorado that would warrant an article, thus defeating WP:RED rationale. It seems more appropriate to create such redirects for all similar states and replace them with [[Time in the United States|other]] link in the template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There aren't any at the present time, but an article could easily discuss time in Colorado before standard time zones were created in 1883, as well as developments in the state's timekeeping (e.g. observance of daylight saving time) between 1883 and 2014. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Does this discussion indeed belong to the separate article? My concern is that this article will end up as collection of trivia that could be described better in Time in the United States. Eg. the topic of DST observance definitely would benefit from more context, and timekeeping in Colorado before 1883 was not much different from neighbour states either I suppose. (I may easily be wrong here.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone familiar with Colorado history (in other words, not I) could put together a discussion of time-related differences from city to city, as well as the process of implementing time zones. Numerous states have gone without daylight saving time at various points; we could mention Colorado's resistance to DST or the fact that it never resisted it. Meanwhile, the state's not always been uniformly Mountain Time — see File:Time zone map of the United States 1913.tif, which shows that a little bit in the northeast was Central. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

MediaMatter.com[edit]

The correct website is mediamatters.org. This redirect is wrong in that it:

  1. omits the plural 's'
  2. uses .com instead of .org.

It should be deleted because it is factually incorrect and not useful. Contrast this with MediaMatters.com, which is useful, because it is a registered domain name of the organization that redirects to their official website, and therefore is useful in Wikipedia as well. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: combination of plausible typos make this overall implausible. This URL may lead to completely different contant, making this redirect confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Jungguk[edit]

Not especially Korean - TheChampionMan1234 04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It's unfortunate we don't have those redirects but that's not a reason to make the problem worse per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. These redirects may be useful for people whose first language isn't Korean but can understand it to some extent and/or who don't have access to a Korean keyboard. Siuenti (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I think Siuenti's argument is correct. If it's an official minority language of a country we should have the redirect in all cases. I unfortunately do not have the linguistic ability to make them accurately, or I would do so. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There are 56 officially recognized languages in China. Several of these languages have different written forms and prominent dialects, probably amassing to 500+ ways to state those two terms that are subjects of this discussion. Am I getting you right – you suggest to create redirects for all of them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tsaina[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) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what language this is, but whatever it is, not relevant to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Update According to Wikidata, it is the spelling in several languages (tl:Tsina war:Tsina ceb:Republikang Popular sa Tsina ilo:Tsína] etc) But none of these languages are related to the target.- TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Update "Tsaina" does not appear to be any language, also according to Wikidata (see d:Q29520 and d:Q148 - TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am not sure what it is, but I see no indication that it is connected to the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Filipinos do call the country "Tsina" but our language didn't originate from China. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it maybe did (Austronesian peoples), but this is so long ago that it doesn't change anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:15, 13 August 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.

ZRG[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 Mirgan language. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an abbreviation for China. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR: I created it and see no reason to keep it.
"ZRG" is not an abbreviation for "China"; I intended it as an abbreviation for Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó. I created "ZRG" in May 2008 as a redirect not to "China" but to "People's Republic of China", which at that time was not another redirect but the location of the actual article. In September 2011, somebody moved the "People's Republic of China" article to "China". Before that move, having a redirect from "ZRG" to "People's Republic of China" perhaps made some sense for when you wanted to go to "People's Republic of China" but were too lazy to type "People's Republic of China" and wanted to avoid fully loading an article on "China" in general and somehow didn't know the common abbreviation "PRC".
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, "examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names … of places". But it doesn't say anything about abbreviations of such names, and I don't think the abbreviation ZRG is used much, either officially or inofficially. Pinyin abbreviations are very common in URIs of Chinese sites, but almost all such URI abbreviations I've seen didn't skip syllables, so Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó would be zhrmghg, not zrg. To sum up, ZRG is probably just an unknown, made-up, at best very uncommon (in either language) abbreviation of the official romanization (presidential order no. 37, §18) of the state's official name in the state's official standard language. Wikipeditor (talk) 07:51, 14 August 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.

China;[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) 10:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 11 August 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.

List of comedies[edit]

Ambiguous. No real one target for this anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • disambiguate or listify, we also have other lists this can be used to point to such as List of comedy films -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, because the vast majority of comedies are stage plays, in addition to what 65.94.169.222 says. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Convert into a list of lists (in this case, different lists of comedy types)--Lenticel (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

Am I Wrong 7" vinyl[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. (A while back I XfDd Am I Wrong CD 1 and Am I Wrong CD 2 for the same reason, but as it was not explicitly mentioned at that discussion, I don't think this counts?) Launchballer 21:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect to more normally formatted single redirect Am I Wrong (Mull Historical Society song). Actually there was an article on this single which was deleted without AFD, probably correctly, this 7" redirect is a legacy from that. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where to look for that info, but I would !vote delete if there was no 7" vinyl or keep and mention if there was. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Markovian parallax denigrate[edit]

Delete. The target page has nothing to do with the redirect except beginning with the same word. "Markovian parallax denigrate" refers to a Usenet spamming incident in 1996, which has previously been deemed non-notable, and which is not mentioned in the Markovian page. 75.4.20.212 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Easter Island Syndrome[edit]

Unhelpful and misleading redirect: no indication in target page what the syndrome is. ÷seresin 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, the term was coined by William E. Rees in a 2002 article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society.[16] Rees refers to the idea in this way: "The exuberant flowering of complex societies seems invariably to be followed by their unceremonious wilting and collapse." Rees' idea is based upon the concept of unsustainability (or non-sustainability) previously described by Jared Diamond in 1995 in an article called "Easter's End", published in Discover Magazine.[17] In 2004, economist Palanisamy Nagarajan began using the term in several of his published papers, and some others refer to his work when the term comes up.[18] Nevertheless, Amardeep Dhanju seems to suggest that Rees is responsible for the term.[19] The term was first added to the encyclopedia in 2003 by a Canadian IP.[20] In 2004, after reading the ecophagy article, I created the redirect to point to the term at that target.[21] Unfortunately, a year later, an IP erroneously removed the material from the article and it has remained deleted ever since.[22] After the deletion, the redirect has been moved, vandalized, and moved again.[23] It is very likely that the reason the redirect was changed to the current target was a result of the 2008 paper "Economic Growth and a Low Carbon Economy―Does the Earth Suffer from an “Easter Island Syndrome”?"[24] So clearly, the question isn't whether the redirect should be deleted, the question is, what target should hold the corresponding content? Furthermore, this nomination has me concerned that people aren't checking to see that IPs have deleted content that was formerly a target for a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any mention of this theory in current target, and more importantly I see no reason to mention it there. Retarget to William E. Rees and mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Áustria[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) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially portuguese - TheChampionMan1234 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete Portugal was not part of the Holy Roman Empire, no significant linkages -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: Portugese is not significant language within modern Austria, so no reason to have this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:12, 11 August 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.

法國[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) 17:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete even though the French Concession (French Quarter) is part of Shanghai, it's not a very significant relationship. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED: no specific ties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:13, 11 August 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.

Chartered Institutue of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland[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) 17:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a misspelling that I don't believe needs a redirect, it should probably be deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. This looks like a rather unlikely typo to me. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: implausible typo. There are many similar typos to make in this title alone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:15, 11 August 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.

August 9[edit]

Jazzi Peak[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 13:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep and mention: translation of the native name to English. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (I made this redirect a long time ago but I don't remember why and I wouldn't do it now). "Jazzi peak" is not a real name, just my literal translation from Italian. And it could be also "Jazzi summit", "Jazzi mountain" etc.. So I don't think we should keep this redirect, but I don't really mind it either. ZachG (Talk) 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep this is why redirects should sometimes have documentation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Preventive medicine in islam[edit]

Not covered. - TheChampionMan1234 12:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Medicine in the medieval Islamic world, which appears to match subject most closely. That said, I am not sure this page is worth retention: its title does not appear to be a plausible search term, and page views stats suggest that even bots are not particularily interested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen many redirects titled X in Y X of Y, List of X's in Y etc, that all redirect to Y. Is there a guideline, or at least an essay about this? - TheChampionMan1234 03:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Witches' milk[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

not sure about this - does it make sense to keep such spelling variations as redirects? Richiez (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: pretty valid {{R from misspelling}}, and probably even {{R from plural}} (I don't know whether plural form is common). While wording of nomination implies deletion, no deletion rationale is presented or is obvious from situation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep spelling variations are why redirects exist -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible plural form -Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 12 August 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.

Ukraine map[edit]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

South-East Ukraine[edit]

Not quite sure what I should do with these. - TheChampionMan1234 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget both to Novorossiya: both current targets are inappropriate. The term "Юго-Восточная Украина" is a disambiguated reference to the geopolitical region "Eastern Ukraine" (the latter name is claimed by more prominent economical region "Eastern Ukraine"). Despite its name and maps in Russian Wikipedia article this region does not match territory of South Ukraine and East Ukraine. The division mostly refers the prevelence of political views rising from historical split of modern-day Ukraine between Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, so retargetting these pages to the section about modern use of the name of historical entity that gave birth to this item of aforementioned geopolitical division makes most sense to me.
    Still, I would strongly prefer a different target, because currently the term "Novorossiya" is pushed by Russia, and Wikipedia should not take sides in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
    Whatever happens to these redirects, Southeastern Ukraine should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. While it qualifies for WP:RED, I strongly oppose deletion, because the red link will quickly turn into an outrageously biased article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

M'sia[edit]

This is by no means an abbreviation for Malaysia - TheChampionMan1234 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: an IP attempted to add this note yesterday but was stopped by the abuse filter. See [25] for details. I have no comment myself. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

Inappropriate CNR. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • REtarget to news -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: IMO this is the rare case of appropriate CNR, as the search term "current events" is most likely used in attempt to find out the list of articles about current events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirects to Portal space should not be considered cross-space redirects. The whole point of this is that we don't take readers to a non-reader portion of the site - but Portals are written for readers. Thus, Article -> Portal should never be considered a cross-space redirect and such targets should be kept as appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to news: there is a link to the Portal on News (disambiguation), and the portal isn't hard to find for the basic user considering we have a big link to it on the Main Page labeled "more current events" in the ITN section. —Akrabbimtalk 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • FWIW not everyone uses Main Page. (I don't even remember last time I saw it.) And news is very bad target for this redirect, as news are reports of current events, not the events themselves. It is just like retargetting orange to juice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 8[edit]

North Carolina State[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 and add hatnote. JohnCD (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend this be turned into a disambiguation page that suggests either North Carolina or North Carolina State University. As it is currently, this redirect might be confusing, especially for people unfamiliar with United States universities. (I listed it here because I want to know what other editors think.) --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 20:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My new opinion, per the discussion, is Keep, adding hatnote. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: as I gather, this wording is frequently used in reference to target and follows the common pattern. A hatnote may be used on target article, although I think that wikilink to the article about the state in the very first sentense of the article already does the job. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per nom. The State of North Carolina, North Carolina State University; doesn't seem to be an article on the prosecutor's office/state district attorney/state attorney - 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • DABs are not normally created for disambiguating between two articles. Please see WP:TWODAB for details. Also note, an article on the prosecutor's office/state district attorney/state attorney is ruled out of this hypothetic DAB by WP:PTM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, they're not normal, but this might be a special case. From the page, "If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name." --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 12:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Primary topic is pretty obvious here: the university is routinely called by this name, while this wording, particularily with capitalized "State" is not a typical reference to the state. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per czarkoff, since this in reference to the state would be a typo —PC-XT+ 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and add hatnote.--Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 11 August 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.

Portal:South Korea[edit]

Misleading target, there is no SK portal, even though there is an portal for North Korea, so its best to delete it until someone can make a portal specifically dedicated to South Korea TheChampionMan1234 00:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep portals are not WP:REDLINK applicable. The Korean portal deals with both North and South, so is a useful navigation point. Writers of portals are supposedly experienced Wikipedians, so should be able to bypass the redirect and rewrite it into a portal if they feel they want to do so. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading, since it indicates that there is a portal specific to South Korea, when there is not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this redirect adheres to naming scheme of portals and takes readers to the most relevant portal. I strongly disagree with idea that redirects from related topics and subtopics imply logical equity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 16:02, 25 July 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) 20:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep for now as a redirect to the most appropriate portal Wikipedia has, until something better comes along —PC-XT+ 02:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Red link to encourage portal creation, just like we would do with an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment you've already lodged an opinion on 23 July -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep and comment I share the same reason as others who voted keep. Is somebody willing to create a portal for South Korea? Jaewon [Talk] 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PAGENAME[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, judging by this edit and this comment on my talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-target WP:PAGENAME to WP:Page name, considering the following:

  • WP:Page name has no redirect to its title, and I see very little choice other than wp:pagename.
  • While WP:PAGENAME goes to Magic words#variables, the shortcut WP:VAR is published, which is great. Magic words also provisions fifty-five other redirects for itself, which is great.
  • Page name is an important project page that needs that particular redirect to ease its use and encourage its use. It champions a consistent, concise, standard terminology featuring "pagename" (and "fullpagename" and "namespace") for future-wiki instructing and explaining day to day operations on template and admin page instruction. It is mature and stable, now for almost two years. OTOH {{PAGENAME}}, {{FULLPAGENAME}}, {{NAMESPACE}} (and many other variables) are important for specialists, but it seems to me that the average user experience is more with Wikipedia terminology on the many rendered pages than the few hidden MediaWiki variables, because there are probably tens of thousands of times more project readers than coders. For related rationales that supports lost "new admins" against "established" habits see
  • Searching just Project and Template namespaces for pagename shows that "magic" accounts for about 20% of the hits. So it would seem there's probably more usage of "page name" than "magic words" in the template and admin documentation.
  • Help:PAGENAME exists, but not balanced with WP:PAGENAME. — CpiralCpiral 04:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom and place a hatnote {{redirect|WP:PAGENAME|PAGENAME variable|Help:Magic Words}} (this redirect is here since 2007, and it may be burried down the edit histories of several talk pages). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:26, 8 August 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.

Ffox[edit]

It is also an abbreviation for OMX Helsinki 25. Its not common as an abbreviation for Firefox. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MAKINGSHITUP[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) 09:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a case of biting the newcomers. It was deleted at a previous RfD but subsequently got recreated. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It actually was not recreate and is a separate redirect that existed before the other deletion and was simply overlooked. I don't think it is necessary and even if it was kept I think Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A11 would be a better choice though I still don't think it's needed.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:SHIT. Considering one of the meanings of shit, it officially conflates imagination and waste, as if to say "don't even think", like the unencyclopedia web site would. Delete unless our administration is faddish. — CpiralCpiral 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GRATUITOUS. Profanity should not be included for its own sake. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: strictly speaking, I see no valid deletion rationale for this redirect, but nevertheless usage of such shortcuts never helps making discussion productive, particularily in discussions about including some content hanging on WP:OR border. FWIW Wikipedia:Offensive material (which Cpiral and Gdfusion refer to under respective shortcuts) is content guideline, and does not apply to redirects in "Wikipedia" namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 23:11, 8 August 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.

Kobiecie[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Polish. —— TheChampionMan1234 03:15, 8 August 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.

Yhdistyneet Kansakunnat[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) 09:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an official language of the UN. —— TheChampionMan1234 00:17, 8 August 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.

August 7[edit]

WhitesCantBeRaped[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. No policy compliant delete rationale has been presented. In the event that this phrase is removed from the target at a future date then this redirect would need to be revisited. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a completely unreasonable redirect. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Question Why? NotBetaFive (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see the problem. It redirects to a sourced section of another article. Unless we think that it's an implausible search term it should probably be kept.- MrX 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: completely reasonable redirect, hashtag is discussed in target article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:35, 8 August 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.

UkrAine[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 as R3 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a search term generally used. No source call Ukraine as UkrAine. And this is not a typo that people often make. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete under WP:R3, as a recently created redirect from implausible typo or misnomer. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:04, 7 August 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.

Cars 3 (2013 3D animated sequel film)[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 as G5 (block evasion) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Highly unlikely redirect. Created by sock of a blocked user. SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 7 August 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.

冰岛[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) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not especially Chinese. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:43, 7 August 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.

Slovaquie[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) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not related to any of these languages. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:41, 7 August 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.

Templates on Wikipedia[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, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Recently created, unlikely search term, unhelpful. —— TheChampionMan1234 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: rather pointless XNR promoting the worst possible path for getting used to Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete XNR redirect to pipeworking, not for the readership -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 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.

No original resarch[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, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely search term if not referring to project policy, it is mentioned nowhere at the target except for a hatnote. - TheChampionMan1234 04:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOR is not something for the readership, so anyone linking to the current redirect expecting WPNOR, will be mislinked, and original research is something research covers. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: apparently this wording has no strong connection with anything but WP:NOR, and creating another XNRs as an outcome of RfD is something I would like to avoid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: NOR is a WP policy. This redirect avoids violating WP:META by making no sense. We don't need it. NotBetaFive (talk) 21:40, 7 August 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.

Uragan (spaceplane)[edit]

The only mention of Uragan in this article is in an external link, now that the section on it has been removed. An ip requested this be either mentioned in the article or the redirect deleted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#A very small tropical disturbance. I believe this is similar to reason #10 for deletion. —PC-XT+ 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • According to Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy this project never existed. Apparently there was a project of space rocket Uragan, which would serve an good target for this redirect if "(spaceplane)" disambiguator was not attached – space planes and space rockets are sufficiently different topics. Reported off-site link for this subject deserves some explanation; I can't find any appropriate target, so I could suggest to retarget this redirect to Uragan DAB, where its entry should be changed to
    • Uragan, rumored, reportedly non-existing Soviet project of spaceplane
    On the other hand, incoming links for baseless speculations should be punished, so it could make as much sense to delete this redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support either of those options. —PC-XT+ 05:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? - TheChampionMan1234 01:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-neutral —PC-XT+ 04:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Ok, I see how this could be acceptable as an opinion redirect. I retract my !vote. —PC-XT+ 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the former name for AfD was VfD -- votes for deletion , so this is commentary about the Wikipedia deletion process in the form of a redirect. (like WP:DRAMA used to [26] about WP:AN) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: this redirect expresses opinion of its author about the process. I just don't see a valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

All right good night[edit]

Unlikely search term as these were not the correct words, this quote is not mentioned at the target, see [27] - TheChampionMan1234 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: plausible search term. It is much easier to remember then any other details about missing flight. I don't think that missing comma makes any difference in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - not really a plausible search term, since the misreporting was refuted. Unlikely that someone would search using the term because all they could remember of the reporting was a single phrase and not the airline, or the date of disappearance, or any of more natural searches. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for now per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, with support for renomination in a few months. I expect the term will only become less used, and would support immediate deletion, except that I know people don't remember (or don't want to spell) Malaysian airlines, flight numbers, dates or other details that are less memorable to them, and use fleeting terms like this. —PC-XT+ 19:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:SinSQ800-805/Singapore Airlines[edit]

Inappropriate redirect from article space. - TheChampionMan1234 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Italië[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) 13:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

All of these languages aren't related to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 00:38, 7 August 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.

Seoul International Film Festival[edit]

It redirects to Seoul, which has one sentence about the film industry (in the Museums section, not the Festivals one). That sentence does not mention the festival. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 6[edit]

First Battle of Picardy[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 1st Battle of Picardy to First Battle of Picardy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

An article has been written which should have this title (mistakenly called 1st Battle of Picardy by me), so this needs to be deleted so the page can be moved. This redirect is circular, incidentally. TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See discussion below.TheLongTone (talk) 19:47, 6 August 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.

1st Picardy[edit]

Does not seem to be a particularly likely term to use as an abbreviation of title article has been moved to (1st Battle of Picardy) TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history I left this: I started an article First Battle of Picardy but it redirects to Race to the Sea or goes to a page titled 1st Picardy, which is the abbreviation in the Race to the Sea template. I've tried to edit the redirect following Wikipedia:Redirect and only managed to bugger things up more.
  • I managed to change the redirect wording to First Battle of Picardy and then found that it was still going to Race to the Sea which was the target of the original redirect. Everything I tried made things worse. Please help.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


The new article on the 1st Battle of Picardy is a good start - but I believe it should be called the First Battle of Picardy (for consistency). Then, the redirect can be fixed to point to this newly created article, and a link added to the Race to the Sea#Battle of Picardy, 22–26 September article. MWadwell (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
See above, there's a redirect in the way.TheLongTone (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: the title is not specific enough to establish the target, while not being plausible search term. This redirect arguably qualifies for WP:CSD#R3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until it's ready to be retargeted. "First X" is a common short form for "First Battle of X", and the same is true of other numbers; see our redirects for First Bull Run and Third Ypres for some examples. Any time we have a "First" title, "1st" is a reasonable alternate title. No objection to disambiguation if appropriate, but it shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fryderyk Shopin[edit]

Implausible typo. � (talk) 08:53, 21 July 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) 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with Dmitrij. I can never remember how to spell this guy's name (how did he get a French name, anyway?), and those three are reasonable misspellings. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Chrome 1[edit]

The version numbers are not particularly significant. TheChampionMan1234 08:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all, Chrome has always used a rolling release system, so particular versions are not significant � (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all Chrome versions are not significant milestones. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Google Chrome#Release history: I see no harm from these, neither I see a valid deletion rationale. All of these are partial matches for respective Chrome releases, and they are plausible search terms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Refine target to Google Chrome#Release history. These are plausible search terms. "Not significant" is not a policy-compliant ground for deletion. For established redirects, to keep is the default action with only harmful redirects being deleted - see WP:RFD#HARMFUL and WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Chrome did never have “releases”. The version number is strictly internal — read what rolling release means. (Ignore the bulk of the artiicle, since only the header is relevant to individual programs.) � (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "strictly internal"? Version number of Chrome can be easily found from the program, and they are routinely referenced off-site (example). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Chrome releases are not marketed separately, unlike eg. IE releases. � (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
          • We are not bound to decisions by Google's marketing department. When you need to describe the point at time when new feature was added, you may either refer to vague date (in April 2011) or to Chrome version (in Chrome 11); the latter is IMO much more precise and encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 04:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
            • This is not a marketing decision. I see nothing wrong with saying that some feature was added in Fabrikam version 1.45.678.9, even if it was a non-notable point release. And Chrome versions are just that. � (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Exactly. It is nothing wrong to address non-notable point releases, and it is routinely done on Wikipedia and off-site. That's why deletion rationale here is flawed and these redirects qualify for WP:R#KEEP criterion 2. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:01, 7 August 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) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete all. None of the Google Chrome releases was numbered with an integer. That makes the redirects "novel or very obscure" synonyms for certain versions of the browser, satisfying WP:RFD#DELETE. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Taïwan[edit]

Not especially French and implausible typo TheChampionMan1234 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep This redirect resembles the target's name enough to not be particularly astonishing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, and as an implausible typo. Additionally it misleads English-speakers about the pronunciation of the target title: the "ai" in Taiwan is a diphthong and is not pronounced with diaresis (as in the famous New Yorker example coöperate). quant18 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Taylor Trescott and since I created this redirect in the first place. Then again, should it be deleted, I won't throw a fit. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless, and deprecate FORRED since it is being constantly abused. All the best: Rich Farmbrough14:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC).
Rich, in what sense is FORRED being "abused"? Such redirects are often deleted with clear consensus. Is this standard really being "abused," or do you just disagree with it? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention if that was ever agreed to it would mean that we would need to remove WP:R#DELETE criterion 8 since FORRED is basically a reiteration of that.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Special thanks to Rich Farmbrough for necessity to spell it out instead of saying "per WP:FORRED". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't pronounced “Ta-yee-wan” in English, which this redirect suggests � (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quaint18. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per Taylor Trescott, and an apparently plausible search term per the only objective factor we have, ie stats [28]. Cavarrone 15:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Stats are at normal bot-only level actually. FWIW the link you gave shows that this RfD alone doubles viewer count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 21:52, 20 July 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) 12:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hert[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 disambiguate. bd2412 T 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This redirect page links to no misspellings of "Hertz" but to two correct uses of "Hert". : Noyster (talk), 10:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, there are three things called Hert or HERT according to Wikipedia, I have put a suggested DAB on the talk page. Siuenti (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Siuenti -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with above: Noyster (talk), 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate Apparently, it's also a synonym for "hart", meaning a male Red Deer. G. C. Hood (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Siuenti --Lenticel (talk) 02:53, 11 August 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.

They are supposed to be out of bed, you blithering idiot[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 — already deleted as G7 [non-admin closure] � (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Random quote from a Harry Potter film. Unlikely search term. gobonobo + c 06:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I created this redirect purely because it made me laugh. No point wasting any more time on this - WP:G7d.--Launchballer 12:40, 6 August 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.

Wikipedia:RfU[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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as a helpful and logical target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what this should be. - TheChampionMan1234 04:28, 6 August 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.

猶太人大屠殺[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) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


This topic has no affiliation for any of these languages. - TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 August 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.

COPY (command)[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 copy (command) [non-admin closure] � (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best target for this. DOS is far from the only computer to have a copy command. I'd say copy and paste functionality seen in modern GUIs is a more likely target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Retarget to copy (command). This capitalization is used on many case-insensitive OSes. - TheChampionMan1234 04:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command). Ideally this should have been disambiguated, but I can't find good targets for other operating systems. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Retarget to copy (command). I think the discussion can be closed, since I (as the creator of the redirect) agree with the new proposal. (Of course, I had a rationale for creating it different in the first place, but that's a more general long-term vision how to create more consistency at least within groups of related articles without violating conventions established by different operating systems (as we often do now), and in that vision, the target would have been changed at a later stage, anyway.) Like Dmitrij, I think both "COPY (command)" and "copy (commmand)" should ideally point to a disambiguation page, and at present "copy (command)" is the closest to a concept-disambiguation page we have, so that's fine with me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:33, 6 August 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.

Listcruft[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) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper redirect outside of reader-space. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: XNRs to Wikipedia essays with limited acceptance; I tried to locate an article that would mention attitude towards excessive lists in established style guidelines, but apparently we have nothing on this topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete XNR to essay not meaningful to the readership, as it is for the editorship. Further, crufty lists are not the sole province of Wikipedia, so the essay is not meaningful to other circumstances. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 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.

Tomatœ[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) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Implausible typo, and this does not mean "Tomato" in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep {{R from misspelling}} -- we have tomatoe , and Dan Quayle couldn't spell potatoe ; -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: this appears to have more to do with metal umlaut then with misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment:Its impossible to type this using English US Qwerty Keyboard- TheChampionMan1234 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The symbol is present in "us (intl.)" and "gb" layouts in XKB, so this is rather weak argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible diacritic � (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. œ isn't used in English, and "Tomatœ" isn't the correct name in any other language. The title is an implausible typo. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • wikt:fœtus is a spelling that shows "œ" is used in English, so not just Mœtley Crue -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The entry you link specifically says that it is very rare hypercorrection case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is an English word that uses "œ", it doesn't really matter what that particular English word is, it shows that "œ" is used in English. My biology professor insisted on using that form of that word (I think he was emphasizing being a Brit and not a local). Other words exist with this form. onomatopœia, fœderal, diarrhœa, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 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.

August 5[edit]

No Pants Day[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 wrong forum. This has been sorted out elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore article and edit history The edit history has been moved to a dictionary definition article without any references.  It is inappropriate that the material in this article be associated with the "nudity" category. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Wrong forum (and oppose) - What is being recommended by the nominator? Are you suggesting that No Pants Day be split off from the Pantlessness article? Are you suggesting that the Pantlessness article be moved back to No Pants Day? Either way, this isn't the right forum. I would also oppose both of those courses of action. Furthermore, the current article is far from sourceless; there are twenty-three references cited in the article at present. Neelix (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I avoided stating an opinion about what happens to the pantlessness article.  I figure such is a matter for AfD once the No Pants Day edit history and article is restored.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As for these 23 references, which of the 23 are for pantlessness?  (Ans: none)  Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion was closed by me (non-admin), and the closure was subsequently contested by nominator, so I re-open this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wrong forum: whatever this bizarre nomination may mean, RfD does not deal with restoring articles, edit histories or anything at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is "Redirects for discussion".  This is a problem with a redirect that needs admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Your problem is not with redirect, but rather with an article edited away. Although you still don't specify, what exactly do you want to happen, it is definitely not going to happen here. If you want to delete revisions of Pantlessness preceding page move, you should follow Wikipedia:Revision deletion § How to request Revision Deletion. If you want split page history of Pantlessness, you should ask at WP:AN. If you want to move back the article and return it to previous state, you should gather consensus on article's talk page. If you want something else, you should at least state your wish in plain language with sufficient detail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 01:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a redirect, this is redirects for discussion, and the request requires admin tools.  My request in opening this RfD is stated in bold.  This does not delete Pantlessness, and this does not involve revision deletions.  I've explained that the Pantlessness article should be left with the zero sources that it has, suitable for taking to AfD.  I don't see that your various claims for why this belongs at another forum are backed with policy, guidelines, or case history of similar cases.  This is not within the scope of WP:Editing policy, so discussions on the talk page do not apply.  Split is related, but this is not a normal split, and you've provided no evidence that this discussion should be moved to WP:AN.  We've already discussed moving the article back, and in reverting your close you've agreed that you understand that this is not a WP:RM.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you don't ask for action on this redirect. You ask for action on Pantlessness article's edit history. Please, gather consensus first at article's talk page, and then ask at WP:AN. The only action regarding this redirect is its speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G6, which can't be discussed now (due to lack of proper discussion of the changes you want to perform to article's edit history) and will need no discussion if your suggestion will be supported by consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you agree that we are discussing a redirect?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No, we are discussing article, that could be previously found in the same location where now resides the redirect. We are not discussing redirect, and we are not having a constructive discussion because you opened this discussion in wrong forum. We are just wasting our time and storage space of Wikimedia Foundation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 12:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
By your own words, at the location there "now resides the redirect".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
And so what? This redirect is not the subject of your request. You request manipultion with edit history of a Pantlessness, and whatever happens here, it will have no effect on that article. No Pants Day does not contain edit history to restore, so you request can't be fullfilled in discussion of this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment  Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one.".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to nominator — as far as I can tell, no admin tools are needed. There are no deleted revisions in this page's history and no deleted revisions in the history of the target article: the only way that we'd need admin tools is if we decided to move the target over the redirect, and that would be a requested move, which would be advertised in different places (e.g. target's talk page and WP:RM, so that move-watchers can notice) that don't pay attention to RFDs. If you want that process and don't know how to work it, let me know and I can set it up for you. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Moving the target back over the redirect would bring with it the few sentences about Pantlessness, which are (IMO) material that needs to stay with the Pantlessness title so that Pantlessness can be taken to AfD.  In theory, I could merge/split the No Pants Day material back and cite the edit history in Pantlessness in an edit comment, but this would create a WP:MAD problem if Pantlessness were then taken to AfD, as all of the edit history for No Pants Day currently resides with Pantlessness.  And as per the above comment, there is an objection to such a merge/split.  I suppose that there is another option, which is to take Pantlessness to AfD and try to get the entire thing deleted, then I can request a Userfy to re-create No Pants Day, which by itself has survived AfD.  There seems to be nothing I can do with the two edit histories confounded.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want a history split, this isn't the way to go about it — request a history split specifically. I can help with that if you want, or you can lay it out for another admin; whichever you prefer, you need to be really specific so that we don't end up with any revisions in the wrong place. Just say "Edits from 2 May 2005 until X need to be at No Pants Day, and edits from Y until the most recent need to be at Pantlessness" if it's that simple, or if it's more complicated, you may need to give even an edit-by-edit account of things. Regardless of whom you want to perform the split, dump your list on the talk page, and then drop me a note or tag the article with {{db-g6|History split; see explanation at the talk page}} for another admin to find. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 15 August 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.

TheChurchOfJesusChristofLatterdaySaints[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This should be deleted. This is a completely implausible typos or misnomers that is unused by any page. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete: although it looks like a CamelCase title of the article, it is not. The fact that it is there since 2001 does not add much plausibility to this title, and stats show that it is not used by humans. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects that have existed for 13 years are bound to have a wide range of incoming links from across the Internet. We're not in the business of breaking long-standing URLs. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no evidence that there actually ever was a significant traffic over this redirect. Also note: initial target was Disabilities, and this CamelCase redirect did not point to the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the period when Wikipedia disallowed space in article names, and even a full year after this restriction was dropped. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 10:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment: I agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. There is no evidence that there actually ever any traffic over this redirect. It's a completely implausible typos that has just been sitting used since 2001. Just because it's old doesn't make it likely that incoming links from the internet are there.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep update Neutral {{R from misspelling}} - lack of spaces, thus a possible outcome when entering a URL directly into the addressbar and thinking our article page names are formatted like the rest of the web; per WP:CamelCase very old links were formatted this was on Wikipedia, and for the period after the restriction was dropped, people still made these because they were the traditional link names. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to say the same here as I've said in another nomination discussion of the same date. I've no idea where the policy may be that says breaking incoming links is a keep rationale but it certainly isn't one I've ever seen expressed at WP:AFD and I really do not see what the difference is between a redirect and an article in this context. We regularly delete articles, seemingly without any concern for incoming links. Why are redirects different? - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep "Not breaking links" has never been heard of at AfD because it is hard to think of how it would be relevant; a redirect will cover the problem. The links that went to the merged or redirected article will automatically go yo the new target, while if the information is being deleted entirely, the links should go nowhere. There might be reasons for redirecting to a deleted article list or redirecting tho the AfD, but there would be obvious disadvantages in doing it automatically; if anyone would like to propose this as an option as a new policy, please let me know, & I'll join the discussion. But when we direct a redirect like this the target still exists, and the information is there, but we are making it impossible for the incoming links to find it. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @DGG: thanks for that explanation. I certainly now see why it would not appear as an argument at AfD. I'm still not convinced about why it should appear as one at RfD. To take an extreme example, if someone created a redirect They Are An Odd Bunch Of People and redirected to a valid article about some religious group, political party or whatever then the target would be retained but would we really worry about breaking incoming links to the redirect? I guess that common sense has to play a part, not merely policy? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be a delete as negative POV. A closer example would be a redirect from random letters. That would be a delete as useless. Runon names are used all the time on the web, so this is not useless. Yes, it is a matter of common sense to distinguish, which is why we need these discussions, to see if what one person thinks common sense is shared by others. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This becomes more clear. I now also understand the earlier reference to this being a camel case issue. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
What links are you talking about? Stats show bot-level activity even including the unprecedented hit count increase during this RfD. And again: this was never an article or visible page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep DGG has persuaded me, primarily because of the camel case point. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not hurting anything, and nothing that's so extremely old (it was created just three months after the wikipedia was set up!) should be deleted unless it's quite actively causing problems. Remember that in the earliest days of the wikipedia, all page titles were in CamelCase because that was the only way to make a link, and people sometimes didn't know what 2+ letters needed to be capitalised (I remember seeing some old archived discussion about AUstralia v. AustraliA v. other options) because there was no standard. I don't know, but it's very possible that in the earliest days it wasn't possible to include punctuation. With that in mind, it's very likely that links to this redirect exist in old revisions of articles, and deleting this redirect would break those links with no benefit to anyone. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 15 August 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.

Economic slavery[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 Wage slavery. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Current target does not contain this phrase nor discuss anything related to this concept. Not sure what should be done with this. Maybe retarget to wage slavery (which comes up pretty high in Google results for economic slavery). Wouldn't object to deletion either. quant18 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 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) 15:11, 5 August 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.

Dhanada Kanta Mishra[edit]

Fails WP:NPOL, as per the previous AfD. While that AfD resulted in a redirect based on the claim that non-notable election candidates should redirect to the constituency that they contested, I've no idea where that policy comes from. If they're not notable, why bother? Sitush (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: the subject is mentioned in the target. Notability has nothing to do with redirects, and no valid rationale for any change was presented. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR. It should never have been redirected in the first place. That's the problem: it cannot go back to AfD because of the redirect but the guy is not notable and no-one has denied that fact. I understand the principle of "plausible redirects" but, honestly, we're looking at the very thin end of an extremely thick wedge if we start doing this for unsuccessful election candidates: there are several thousand in each Indian election, for example, and there are multiple notable electoins (two national houses and 26/27 states with their own elections). - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction: 29 states - I can't count. Sorry for the delay in correcting but it doesn't substantively alter my argument. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The only reason that keeps such redirects from deletion is possibility of off-site linking: Wikipedia articles are routinely linked from everywhere on the web, and there was an article here for some time. Creation of similar redirects is discouraged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Who cares about off-site linking? I certainly don't and loads of articles that are much older get deleted. The article was created as part of a massive spam-my campaign at the end of March, when the Aam Aadmi Party was flooding Wikipedia with references to its candidates in the May 2014 elections. The general issue was raised at, for example, WT:INB and WP:AN. Most of the duds got deleted but this one seems to have slipped through the net. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please, see WP:R#HARMFUL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:IAR and stop being so officious about things. Use your common sense and consider WP:FLOODGATES if you allow this thing to remain (yes, I know it is a redlink). - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Common sense is failing to find a good reason to delete this redirect. Why would ignoring rules make Wikipedia better here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As you should know, we don't keep articles about non-notable people. A failed election candidate with no other claim to notability is indeed non-notable. The problem here is that a prior AfD, while agreeing that he was non-notable, resulted in a redirect even though there was no consensus for either that or for deletion. I've no idea why Joe Decker (talk · contribs) came to the conclusion that they did because it does not seem to be based on policy-compliant arguments unless they were thinking that it was a "plausible redirect", in which case no-one actually advanced that argument.
Now we have a situation where a spammed, recently-created article about a non-notable person remains on the project despite umpteen similar ones created around the same time having been deleted. And we have a situation where there is allegedly no mechanism for policy-compliant deletion of the redirect. This then causes a precedent whereby in future all election candidates are entitled to a page of their own even and if they are non-notable then that page would ultimately be redirected to the constituency that they contested. That is thousands and thousands of additional BLP pages that we would have to monitor aside from this one (and, I guarantee you, in the case of India they will mostly not be monitored and BLP issues are rife). We could ignore all the rules about what can and cannot be deletion under the RfD process in order to bring this situation into line with what normally happens (deletion); alternatively, we could restore the article to its pre-redirect state (also IAR) and run it through AfD again. Some of the RfD rules are spurious in any case; for example, Dmitrij says that the article has been around for a while (it hasn't really) and that off-wiki links would be an issue if it is deleted (it wouldn't - we regularly delete articles without concerning ourselves about off-wiki links and a redirect is no different from an article in that sense).
Now, give me some reasons why we should retain the redirect, other than the off-wiki links issue that is in fact a red herring. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment: Notability is not temporary. While the subject was contesting elections some trivial references about him were seen in news and stuff. Those still remain on internet. After failure in elections, the subject hasn't reached the WP:NPOL bar required by us. But he still remains a possible searchable item. I would agree on deletion of the redirect if someday someone convinced us all of how in bulk redirects are actually costly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Eh? Sure, notability isn't temporary but he hasn't attained that standard, even by your own recognition. If he ever does (eg: he is elected in some future contest) then we recreate. Forget the rubbish about cheap redirects: on that basis, and the often-mentioned more general one that storage is cheap anyway, we wouldn't need a notability policy: we'd just retain anything that could be reliably sourced even to a passing mention. It is as if everyone has suddenly been affected by a full moon or something. I mean, I know you're sensible, Dharmadhyaksha, but that's why I'm flabbergasted by the arguments that you and others are putting up. You, in particular, are aware of the problems connected to Indian BLPs and of the sheer scale of Indian elections. Not to mention how in, say, Punjab, the commonality of names is pretty extreme and thus if we allow this precedent we're really heading towards a massive disambiguation problem. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the NPOL is basically discussing criteria for an article's existence. (No way am I suggesting that different lenient criterion be written for redirects of all N-essays.) But we can't neglect the fact that the term is searchable (or more practically, was while he was contesting). I can foresee the problem that would arise if all nominees of all numerous elections of past and present started having redirects; that also include independent candidates who will only be mentioned in some official notices, etc. But I suppose we have to handle that problem if and when it comes. I would side on deletion with you if the redirects were directly created based on this as precedent.....
(Actually, its getting complicated now. I have previously opposed AfDs that resulted in redirecting Hindi songs to their respective Bollywood films. In those cases, they were random Hindi-words strings. But here the notability of people is slightly more than songs. Nevertheless, confused now and hence striking off keep.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just (neutrally) mentioned this discussion at the India Project talk page. Is there anywhere else that might be appropriate? - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I would support making these universally for failed candidates, and not just in India. The criterion is that they are mentioned in the article, if they include independent candidates the redirects would be made also. Present and past. It leads a person searching to useful information: where and when they ran, and how many votes they received. WP can handle it; I see no practical objections other than the problem of those running in multiple elections. If there are 10,000 election districts worldwide with an avg of 4