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.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • 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]

January 26[edit]

Sum[edit]

Retarget The longstanding target (for 9 years) of the redirect has been summation. Earlier this month, it was repointed to the disambiguation page. I believe this should be restored to point to summation (where "sum" is explained in the first 3/4 of the introduction) or alternately to addition. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Addition. 65.94 was quite right in saying that all, but I think addition is a better target. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that I just lost a bit of blood not unfortunately delivered to the blood donor service but my stupidity of cutting some glass and getting it a bit wrong. I think I am ok now but excuse me for being a bit high, My comment as it stands is what I think but I am still a bit airy, so I wouldn't trust me. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article summation currently has a longish hatnote already, and already another disambiguation page summary (disambiguation) to worry about. One could argue that this link is not very necessary, and we could replace it with a link to sum (disambiguation) instead. But I think this should be accounted for in the discussion here. I'm rather inclined to say that this redirect should remain at the disambiguation page, at least until a fuller discussion of what actually needs to be disambiguated in the hatnote has taken place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirection to Sum (disambiguation), or Move Sum (disambiguation) to Sum. To repeat what I said on Talk:Summation, a summation usually means a sum of many things, perhaps an infinite number of terms. The way this all started was that I was trying to remember a term ("direct sum"), so I typed "sum". Instead of this going to the disambiguation page where I could look to see whether I could find what I was looking for, it went to Summation, and then I had to click on the link to "Sum (disambiguation)" in the note about Sum redirecting to Summation. So I decided to change Sum to redirect to the disambiguation directly. I think that makes more sense. As I have noted in my edit comments, I don't think the fact that Sum has redirected to Summation for years is a good argument. I do not agree that the Summation article's introduction talks mostly about sums in general. It immediately starts talking about partial sums, running totals, series, and sums of several numbers. Nothing about direct sums (what I was interested in) or simple addition of two numbers. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Summation (restore prior to earlier retargeting) as primary topic. The hatnote there is quite long and perhaps it can be cleaned up. I disagree that summation is the same as addition - addition is a mathematical operation while summation is the aggregate of all values of a given function for an identified range of values; summation involves addition but can also involve any mathematical function. Or perhaps more simply: addition is taking two values and putting them together to get a new value, summation is doing addition repeatedly, perhaps infinitely many times, perhaps a negative number of times if you get into complex math. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) disclaimer: not a mathematician
    • Is (2 + 2 + 2 = 6) an example of addition, summation, or both? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~[edit]

This redirect is just silly. The only reason why I found it that I typed in a "~" in the search box and this redirect showed up. Very unlikely anybody else would find this redirect. Aerospeed (Talk) 15:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Yeah, it's silly, but the article was referred to by this title, albeit satirically, in XKCD (link). It's largely unambiguous, unless a reader was expecting an article about the film article's naming dispute (which we wouldn't have). --BDD (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least having a redirect discourages people from adding something even sillier at this title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect per WP:XKCD. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to xkcd. Someone who bothers to type this in is obviously here because of the comic, thus this gets them what they are looking for. This particular jumble of characters has no relevance to the Star Trek film and is not mentioned there, nor should it be. Ivanvector (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to xkcd. At least it's referenced there.--Lenticel (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. "StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs" is not mentioned at the target. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is mentioned only as the title of one of the many primary-source references (#19). I don't see how it is helpful to anyone who did not already know not just that webcomic (I didn't) but that particular edition of that strip in that comic, in which case they didn't need WP to tell them that. But it's harmless (I've marked as {{R from alternative punctuation}}, by the way). Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If anything, it should probably CNR to WP:TITLE or maybe WP:XKCD. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In particular, the specific comic is linked to as an example, together with 7 other comics, for the sentence: "References to Wikipedia articles or to Wikipedia as a whole have occurred several times in xkcd." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we also have:
Should that be added to the nom? It could be argued it's just an {{R from alternative capitalization}} (and I've marked as such) that has nothing to do with the strip. (Unlikely, but could be.) These Rs seem to stop there, there's no ~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~, * StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs * etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but retargeting to XKCD is a really poor choice. The film title is only mentioned in the title of a reference there, and that reference is just supporting a broader point that XKCD references Wikipedia; that's the sort of redirect that would get deleted at RFD. The WP:XKCD essay cautions against "Popular culture" sections in articles listing references in XKCD. Extending this to support deletion of a redirect seems quite a stretch. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • More titles - since we're on the topic we might wish to also discuss these (such titles as science it works bitches and Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;--) but I have not added them to the nom because that would be very time consuming (sorry, I'm busy today). Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ican old bean, We're not on that topic but this one. With the previous edit quite rightly I think I said do your homework. And thanks also for the little thanks somewhere else for finding a better target for something, much appreciated to have a little thanks like that. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Of your first reference I don't see the relevance. We are discussing this redirect, not all the others. But some are very odd, certainly. Portmanpropism I guess is itself a portmanteau word of "Portmanteau word" and malapropism. Malamanteau should be a bad mountain to climb but isn't, or if you split it the other way is a bad stomach-ache), if Portmanism meant anything it would mean the capitalism of Shirley Porter, but it doesn't; "Mal au estomache" would be correct, or "Mal a mon teu" would mean "It hurts in somewhere not fit for WP", Science it works bitches obvious D, Transconciceness Messaging Protocol I assume is a pun on TCP/IP, Interblag no idea, Little Bobby Tables Also I guess is a mnemonic (or retronymic) for LBTO, and the few left starting with X are up there own arse. Homework please.

Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No wonder I can't find them, because the first source is primary back to Wikipedia. Should I laugh or cry? Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Little Bobby Tables redirects to xcsd. Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit of a wall of text but I think you meant to say that I should "do my homework" regarding the suitability of the redirects. Of course they are related to stuff that happened in xkcd comics. My point is that this redirect is also obviously related to xkcd stuff. Thus, if we are going to discuss the suitability of one xkcd-related redirect, we might as well discuss them all. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. IvanVector, I must disagree (and please excuse me for mistyping you as Ican, simply missed the key there). If you want to list them all, then list them all: another editor does frequently with mojibake redirects. But you didn't, you only listed one, hence the discussion is only about that one. I am not standing on ceremony here at all, but I am not sure how other editors including me are expected to guess how all the other ones are if you don't list them. Si Trew (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have added the other related redirect that you found earlier as it's directly relevant to this discussion, but there doesn't seem to be any appetite for discussing those other pages that redirect to xkcd and it's not a malamanteau I particularly wish to die upon (I may be mixing my metaphors here). The only point I wish to reiterate is that we have several redirects for obscure references from that webcomic which the average reader is highly unlikely to come across unless they are coming here directly after seeing the reference in xkcd, and if they do then they should get to the webcomic article; this redirect is another of those and should be treated the same. As a secondary !vote I agree that they have no business pointing at the article on the film as they are otherwise patent nonsense - nobody is going to come here and type that exact string of characters unless they're coming from xkcd, and if consensus is against retargeting to xkcd then they should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also just pointing out that the stats link for StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs gives stats for Star Trek Into Darkness because the tool is not case sensitive. The redirect is not the 3001st most viewed page on Wikipedia, I am quite sure. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

War on freedom[edit]

POV, not a normally used term. User's only other contribution is redirecting Zionist Crusade to War on Terror. Have RFD'd that as well. Noformation Talk 11:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • delete not useful. Looks like attempt at political point scoring.©Geni (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have a suspicion this is to do with journalists commenting on ISIS for example this ref:
  • Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The top google hits that I found is about a book with the same title. I'm not sure if said book is notable though. --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - racist POV. Also just want to point out that Si's link is to a blog for an author who is obviously a huge fan of Ayn Rand, but far from journalism. Still, if this term makes it into Fox News (cf. War on Christmas) then I guess the redirect would be appropriate, but best deleted for now. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Zionist Crusade[edit]

POV, racism, etc. Pretty sure there aren't any mainstream, reliable sources that refer to the war on terror as a Zionist Crusade. User's only other contribution is redirecting War on freedom to War on Terror, will be RFDing that as well. Noformation Talk 11:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

β sheet[edit]

Delete mojibake. Many of these titles contain C1 control characters. Gorobay (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Light Man Hero The New York City Saviour Animation[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, G8. Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Target deleted subsequent of AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light Man Hero The New York City Saviour Animation. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Atlanta Experience[edit]

Delete because it's not mentioned in the targeted article, and per WP:REDLINK to show that the article doesn't exist. Tavix |  Talk  06:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D1 "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.". I used My Favourite Search Engine and found lots of experiences to have in Atlanta, mostly tourist information sites (caveat: your search results may differ) but none that refers to this. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dieudonné Gnammankou[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Converted to article stub by me, and expanded by Middayexpress. Procedural close by non-admin Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Gnammankou's a relatively prominent Beninean historian, known for his work on Gannibal. He is linked on the target now, but feel free to delete the redirect. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If his prominence equates to notability then per WP:REDYES the redirect should be deleted to encourage the creation of an article. If he's not notable then he probably shouldn't be mentioned in the target per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It looks to me like there are enough French-language sources to establish notability, but I'd defer to someone who speaks the language. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but in that event there's no need to delete the stub. It can simply be converted to a bio, as it's already appropriately named. At any rate, feel free to continue with the deletion if you still feel that it's warranted. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you mean, sorry. I agree it'd be best if a bio could be written, I'm just not sure who's going to write it (and that's assuming he's notable in his own right, which isn't totally clear). Per REDYES, deleting the redirect might be the best way of achieving that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I mean WP:EDRED ("how to edit a redirect or convert it into an article"). The redirect is already named appropriately, so I can just convert it into a stub. This should take but a few minutes. Alternately, you can delete the redirect and simply leave it as a redlink on the target page. Middayexpress (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want to do that, I think that'd be the best possible result and this discussion could be closed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'll take this if it is OK with you, and make a {{author-stub}} in draft space for your approval. I have some RS but plenty of primary sources too. Most RS is in French but I can do that. Si Trew (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Procedural close please, did the framework, no longer an R, a stub article now. I need to fill this in better, but it's quarter to two in the morning my time and so bedtime for me, I'll expand it tomorrow (or rather later today). Most RS are in French. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 23[edit]

Pro-abortion violence[edit]

Not a term that would normally be searched for so the redirect seems to serve no purpose. jps (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I got better results by searching for "Anti-abortion violence" (instead of pro-), and there is a very tiny possibility at Domestic terrorism in the United States, but I don't think it's very likely. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment @StAnselm: thanks for linking back to those. I don't want to give my views pro or anti abortion, but simply as a redirect, "Pro-abortion violence" is not mentioned at the target, whereas "...position, with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates sometimes using violence." is right in the lead. I am not sure that linking a redirect to an article without any mention of it serves any useful purpose. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point - however, it is mentioned specifically at United States pro-life movement#Violence. StAnselm (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not specifically mentioned there. That section only alludes to violence against 'pro-lifers', which only superficially alludes to 'pro-abortion'. The linked article about a murderer does not say the motive for the killing was 'pro-abortion', but outrage about graphic posters inappropriate for children.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment in case of any doubt when I said "right in the lead" I didn't mean it was right in the sense I was taking a stance, I meant just "it's a plain fact sitting there in the lede of the article". As it happens I shall come clean and say I am in favour of abortion, with I think the best person who argued for it Clive James, who said "The difference is not between pro-abortion and anti-abortion. It's between illegal abortion and legal abortion". But as a man I doN't have to decide that, I just have to decide not to get a woman pregnant in the first place, so I totally abstain on that, except I don't like women dying because of gin and hot baths and all kinds of other backstreet abortions. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to United States pro-life movement#Violence. Si Trew (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to United States pro-life movement#Violence per the above (striking my original "keep" !vote). StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Asaá¹…ga[edit]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • NOTE the accent stripped forms and conversions of superscripts to regular numbers are not even mojibake, they are typos of mojibake and created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are therefore completely useless, since they aren't even generated by mojibake errors. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete all per WP:G1 or possibly WP:G6. Is the bot misbehaving by creating these redirects and should it be told not to? Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Douglas[edit]

Unnecessary Spanish redirect for location not in a typically Spanish-speaking area. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: I agree. The move of Port Douglas to Puerto Douglas in the first place was not necessary. But several cut-and-paste moves later the revision history of Port Douglas is in Puerto Douglas. -- Sam Sing! 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, the history is important. It is a {{redirect to disambiguation page}} but not marked as such, nor as {{R from alternative language}}. Since the target only has two entries, that should surely be sorted out per WP:TWODABS (i.e. just hatnote them). But my first guess was Douglas, Isle of Man (which is not listed at the DAB at target), but that's just me. But deleting it will kinda lose the history for this kind of gnoming, hence keep and I am happy to sort it out once there is consensus. Si Trew (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Haha, by "once there is consensus" I of course mean "when everyone else agrees with me." :) Si Trew (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing particularly meaningful in the page's history. There's no point having a redirect from an alternative language where the alternative language has no relevance to either of the place names; the purpose of such redirect is for when a place name is commonly known by another foreign term. (That remains the case even if the Isle of Man location were considered.) The page was created by an anonymous editor who geolocates to New South Wales, Australia, and creation of the page seem to have been entirely fickle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Then the redirect Puerto Douglas (which will be a {{R from page move}}) can survive as {{R from alternative language}} per WP:CHEAP or not, it doesn't really matter. I offer no comment on whether either (or neither) the Canadian or Australian Ports Douglas are the primary topic. Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anchorsholme F.C.[edit]

Clearly non-notable amateur sports club, certainly not in the top six tiers (at least) of English football. I tagged this as a speedy, but another editor declined without making any other changes, so I've brought it here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please ignore and close The redirect seems to have been created whileI was in the middle of an AFD Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I declined the speedy and parked it as a redirect while I went hunting for a source that verified what the article said was true. However, I've now done that and can report that a search for Anchorsholme "lancashire county football" returns no relevant hits in reliable sources at all. So I don't think even the redirect can exist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:RFD#D8, "Novel or confusing synonym". Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 23 Janua'ry 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - really low-level team, not a likely search term, does not merit a redirect. GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I notice that Ritchie333 apparently created this redirect in the belief that the Lancashire County FA is the league in which this team plays, but it isn't. The LCFA is the governing body for all football in the county and oversees literally hundreds of clubs, so the link between this extremely low-level club and the county FA is very minor and tenuous and certainly not meriting a redirect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section Anchorsholme#Sports, where it is mentioned. I note Anchorsholme FC (without the stops) does not exist, though. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hera Pheri 4[edit]

I declined both PROD and CSD G4 as inapplicable. I actually feel that this redirect should stand, but since there evidently is sentiment for deletion, I will take into RfD. Safiel (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • delete - this was something that was mentioned in passing 6 years ago after the second film in the series. there is not even serious planning for a third film in the series at this point. this has even less basis for potential existence than 2020 U.S. presidential election -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This film might have been briefly mentioned, but, as mentioned by TheRedPenOfDoom, I think WP:CRYSTAL is important to note here. The search bar suggestions would become quite cluttered if every movie/sequel that has been mentioned as "being in the works" was given its own redirect page, not to mention how it would appear misleading ("Oh, they came out with that movie!?" Click "What? What's this?"). Quite unnecessary IMO. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 08:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect might cause confusion". Actually, Hera Pheri 3 is in the list but not Hera Pheri 4. "Hera Pheri" sounds Greek but isn't, I assume a transliteration. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is now (wasn't before) an {{R to section}} "Sanjay Kapoor#Filmography". That is no fault of the proposer, the automated tools (Twinkle?) do not list sections, as discussewd previously. I've simply marked it as R to section since as it stands it is, and not to prejudice this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Journal of Southern History[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10. The JSH is a publication of the SHA, but as a significant academic journal in the field, it's likely to be notable, and having it as a redirect discourages creation of an article. Currently, its only appearance in the target article is one sentence, The SHA publishes the Journal of Southern History. Readers don't particularly benefit from this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Of course, any knowledgeable editor is free to expand this redirect right now. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I might have an idea for making the article, but am not sure if it is Southern United States or Australia, yet. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Southern us, e.g. Weber, Jennifer L. "The Fishing Creek Confederacy" 80 (2). Rice University. 
Where do we stand on university publications as RS? I guess they are aren't they? Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
They can be, and often are, but of course there can be exceptions. This journal covers the Southern US. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The mad dog of the Middle East[edit]

blatant POV-pushing. No inward links SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Further comment. The purpose of redirects is to allow wikipedia users, and editors of other articles, to use their preferred forms of words to access an article. Thus alternative spellings of a name are a prime example (although there are insanely many in this case), or a title instead of a name. Nobody wanting to access the Gaddafi article would type "The mad dog ... " into the search box, and I can only assume that whoever created this redirect was trying to make a point. This is not hte place to do so. Guide of the Revolution should also be removed, as should King of Kings Muammar al-Gaddafi of Africa. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I think "Guide of the Revolution" should go to Karl Marx, if it goes anywhere. The King of Kings as a ?self-styled name is a bit odd, since Libya was not a kingdom even under Gaddafi's rule, so is that just an English transliteration? I found one RS from The Grauniad:
But that itself says it was self-styled. The rest I find are not RS, are youtube and so on. Others probably could do better on the RS. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps aim at section "International Pariah" and "Mad Dog of the Middle East": 1981–86 where the phrase is discussed. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I assumed that it was vandalism or blatant POV-pushing, but as this was the US President's reference to Qaddafi at an important point in US-Libyan relations, it's quite a reasonable redirect. If you disagree with having it as a redirect, you ought to question whether it should be a section header in Qaddafi's article. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in Reagan's article says so, and nothing at target either. Here are a couple:
neither of these say "the mad dog", only "mad dog". The "the" is unnecessary and against WP:TITLE. Since the topic is not mentioned at the target, I see no reason to keep it, and no reasons on the RfD list of reasons to keep have been stated. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, one of them does actually say "the" in the title. Hoist with my own petard there, I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm also questioning why Nyttend deliberately used the 'Q' spelling where presumably the 'G' spelling has consensus for Gaddaffi. My arabic is not brilliant but it is a back glottal sibbilant semi vowel that cannot be represented accurately in English typography, Gh, Sh, and Kh being the hardest for a non arabic speaker, so tend to get spelled various ways in translieration. Si Trew (talk)
Because that's how I typically write the name. Please read your final clause: it tends to get spelled different ways in transliteration. Why do you care? Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Because the target is "G" and you said "Q" even when the target is presented to you with a "G", so I wondered why, it could seem a a bit provovative deliberately to change the spelling when discussing it, so I questioned it. No problem, that was all it was. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That really is a bit odd, to say "please read your final clause". I read it when I wrote it. Whatever the way you usually write it, Wikipedia writes it with a G. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. Let me be clear: I'm not trying to force anyone else to change his spelling, as such attempts are not welcome. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I should prefer if the nominater put updates and responses in chronological order, but since they are where they are, I have responded where they stand. Si Trew (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lips Are Movin (Music video)[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 Speedily retargeted to Lips Are Movin (music video) by non-admin Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This R from Capitalization is not needed and points to the wrong page. MaRAno FAN 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this can be 'speedy close' if anyone agrees, but I am hesitant to do it myself. I think it was just an oversight when the article was split out from a section, not to catch this R. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 21[edit]

Flipnote Studio 3D/version 2[edit]

Odd redirect title that appears as a subpage. This page was created to preserve attributions per WP:A; the attributions that were at this title have been moved to Flipnote Studio 3D (application). Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hoist by your own petard, this is obviously Keep for the attributions. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. History attribution now occupying a reasonable link/search name, instead of a useless one -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Saraswati (goddess)[edit]

Saraswati is the article about the goddess, which can be directly linked. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Scratch that; turns out that the "(goddess)" disambiguator is actually ambiguous due to multiple subjects on the English Wikipedia that are referred to by this term. My vote will change here shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, did you by chance see the hatnote on Saraswati that refers the reader to Sarasvati River as essentially a previous name for Saraswati? Because of that, I'm not 100% sure if some of the articles need to be merged, or if Saraswati (disambiguation) needs to be created, and the nominated redirect should redirect to that page. (Actually, I think that I'm going to go ahead and create the disambiguation page since it would have at least three entries, including the current primary topic.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ...And scratch all of that. Turns out that one of the subjects in the hatnote has a different spelling, and its spelling is referenced nowhere in the article as an alternate spelling for its target. So, I'm changing that, and reinstating my old vote. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Hehe, nice to see someone else's detective work, though, glad it's not just me. Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree it goes where it should. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.--Lenticel (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Naman Ramachandran[edit]

This person writes for the magazine, but is not mentioned at the article. Also, he might be notable, so red-linking to encourage an article might be a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this? I will just create the article with some basic sources, then tag it for expansion. I will add other web sources to a section like "further reading", encouraging other ambitious editors to make use of them. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If the subject is notable and a sufficiently sourced article is drafted then this RfD can be closed. --Lenticel (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, make the article. With WP:RS please. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

BBTS Siatkarz Original Bielsko-Bia³a[edit]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SHY[edit]

Cross-namespace redirect from WP space to user essay. Probably, move the essay into WP space. I came across this purely by accident. So others probably will too. Belongs in WP space, not in user space. Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense, but the word "shy" is not used in WP:BOLD. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to Retarget to WP:Be bold. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then be bold and Retarget it then ;) --Lenticel (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the irony... :) Steel1943 (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • general comment. Consensus at RfD on pretty much every occasion they have been discussed is that WP: shortcuts to userspace essays can be appropriate and so their cross-namespace nature is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thryduulf, what cases are you thinking of? The only ones that come to mind for me are the Yogurt Rule/Yogurt Principle and Concision razor cases, all of which had pretty strong consensus to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you think the target should be in Wikipedia space not userspace then, you have yet again confused RfD with RM, but if the user is still active (I haven't looked) please consult with them before moving or requesting the move of one of their userspace pages. Thryduulf (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf - the message of this essay is slightly different than WP:BOLD - less about content and more about general behaviour. We keep a lot of essays that are about very similar concepts. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Be bold unless the redirect's current target is moved into the Wikipedia: name space. If it gets moved there, then "keep". Cross space redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to the User namespace promote seemingly one editor's opinion as Wikipedia's opinion, and that should not be encouraged ... unless the community accepts that opinion as their own, and then, the target should belong in the Wikipedia namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, optionally moving target to Wikipedia space. strongly oppose retargetting. @BDD: I can't remember the specific cases ottomh and this computer is atrocious for that sort of searching (it took nearly 5 minutes to open this page for example) so I'll have to look later. I do remember in one or both of the yoghurt-related cases I was not the only one to say that the problem was with those specific redirects not with WP -> user redirects in general. The basic argument is that WP shortcuts do not endorse an essay as being adopted by the community, they just provide a reference to it - if you do not recognise a link then you should follow it and read it. Any link can be misused, but in most cases that should be dealt with by discussion with the person misusing the link rather than changing or deleting the link (the yoghurt ones were the exceptions I've seen the last several years at least). I am opposed to retargetting as although the target is similar it is not the same, and it seems the distinction was intentional so retargetting this would change the meaning of previous uses which we should very rarely do - WP:BOLD is a very well known and recognised shortcut and I'm not seeing any necessity or benefit in pointing this less known one there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf, sorry for your connectivity problems (I have them too, it's frustrating, but does at least remind us of WP:ACCESSIBILITY and that not everyone has fast always-on connections on huge screens etc. My T key sticks a lot but seems to have got better lately.) As a CNR this is obviously a WP:SURPRISE, user essays belong (or used to) in WP space, e.g mine and another's WP:OWNFEET went over into WP space, at that time we didn't have Draft: namespace (what a godsend that namespace is!) — or rather we did because I think an editor can create any namespace at any time, but it was not widely recognised and tied up etc, so one tended to draft things in user space — So I'm retargetting so it is not a WP:SURPRISE. Quite happy for this to be the usual WP:BRD but someone has to do something. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I just retargeted it to WP:BOLD, being BOLD and not SHY. Since this has been relisted and so on, someone has to do something since patently its current target is unsatisfactory, and as in real life it is easier to argue "that is definitely not right" than to say "hmm, that may be one of a hundred and one things that could maybe be right if I think about them for a bit". So it points to BOLD now. (User:Lenticel, see, I ain't shy!) Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirects to Halo (series)[edit]

This nomination contains several redirects towards Halo (series) that are terms and in-game concepts in the game series that are neither mentioned at the article, nor its subject explained in detail enough for the redirect to prove helpful. So, delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange... anyways I've changed my former comment. --Lenticel (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"Energy sword" makes me think lightsaber, though it's probably too obscure a synonym to retarget there. Just plain Energy weapon redirects to Directed-energy weapon, which is real, if largely experimental, technology. There's a hatnote to Raygun, but we don't seem to discuss the idea of an energy-based melee weapon in its own article. A lightsaber or a Halo sword aren't really magic swords, Clarke's third law notwithstanding. This might be a candidate for its own article. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm fairly surprised there isn't a timeline of, list of locations and list of notable items since Halo is a fairly extensive and popular fictional universe, and other fictional universes have such list articles. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Retarget "Reach (planet)" , "Battle of Reach" and variants thereof to Halo: Reach, the game that specifically covers the battle. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This subject is not identified as its own separate subject at this proposed title, nor has an exclusive relation to this proposed target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The game "Halo: Reach" is a combat battle game that takes place on the planet Reach, and the primary property in the Halo franchise concerning Reach. Any other uses can be hatnoted, if any other article covers any information on these topics. As it is, this article has information on the Battle of Reach and the planet Reach, and is set there at that time. The entire game is set in the Battle of Reach on planet Reach. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Retarget "New Mombasa" and variants thereof to Halo: ODST, which primarily focuses on New Mombasa and the Battle there. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This subject is not identified as its own separate subject at this proposed title, nor has an exclusive relation to this proposed target. Steel1943 (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This game is the primary property in the Halo franchise dealing with New Mombasa, and contains information about New Mombasa. Any other uses can be hatnoted, if they exist in another article. As it is, this article has the information, and is set at the location "New Mombasa" during the battle there. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Retarget "UNSDCF Marine Force Recon" and variants thereof to Factions of Halo, where the Marines are covered in the article -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The title of this redirect is not specifically mentioned at the proposed target, or in a way that would help those who are not familiar with the Halo gaming series understand the reason why that specific redirect targets the proposed retargeting option. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The target deals with the UNSCDF, subunits of the UNSCDF are therefore part of that topic, if no other articles covers it. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Would any of these actually be referred to as "Eridanus 2" though? If not, search results would be the way to go. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They are rarely referred to as such. So, it is possible search results might be better. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Convert to set index "energy sword", to the various fictional energy swords (ie. light saber, etc). -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm wondering if some of these should be unbundled; others could probably be deleted at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been wondering a bit about these for Battle of Reach. Reach, Cambridgeshire (just about) has an embankment called the Devil's Dyke, Cambridgeshire, which actually extends from the back of Newmarket Racecourse (half in Cambridgeshire and half in Suffolk) to Reach, and it is quite a nice walk if you fancy it and have some boots. (There's a nice pub at Reach if you take it the other way). Now, the reason that Reach has an embankment, according to Bill Bryson, was that the pagans built it forteen feet high first to see what a hill looks like and second to keep the Romans out. The Romans, being Roman (according to Bryson) then managed to evade the embankment by the simple expedient of marching around it. The Folk History Museum in Cambridge will have records. Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
ALso Energy's word (abbr for "Energy is the word") seems a perfectly plausible synonym to me for "Energy sword". That one I would delete as WP:ÉRFD#D2 confusion.

Us military command hacked by ISIS[edit]

Redirect created regarding a breaking news story about a social media back to an article about identify theft. Frankly not only would it be seldom used but it is not the appropriate article for this. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper would also apply here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The section has been removed on identity theft page on the grounds that this was not identity theft. I personally agree with that. At the very least this will need to redirect somewhere else.--65.94.253.74 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment as of right now United States Central Command mentions the hacking so I've retargetted it to there. If the information is not retained in the article or placed somewhere else, the redirect should be deleted. Siuenti (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like it was removed with this edit of 13 January 2015 by User:Mrfrobinson with the comment "This isn't identify theft...see talk page". I've added a courtesy note back to this at the talk page. The deleted content is refs to the BBC and Washington Post reporting that a twitter and youtube account has been hacked by IS/Islamic State i.e. an RS quoting an unreliable primary, which is just fine from WP's point of view, reliable, secondary sources. I requote the sources below which were raw links at that time in the article:
Considering their similarity I would guess this is from a newswire service but neither says so. If nothing else it should go delete since neither source calls it "ISIS", one calling it (in the headline) simply "IS" and one calling it "Islamic State". (Fortunately IS is a DAB with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant listed first in the section "Organizations", so that's one less thing to bicker about.)
Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually I was expecting Dan Lamothe to be a pseudonym for "newswire reporter" but a quick search shows he is a real person, and probably notable enough to have his own article. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Form, fit and function[edit]

Comments please. "Form, fit and function" was an unsourced article with very blahy stuff. I have changed the A to an R doing better, and currently sits at Design Science, which the previous target I chose redirected it to. I think the article as it stood was worse than useless, so am looking for better redirects. I have made some double Rs (now) for "Form and function" etc, which I expect the bots will tie up, they were not when I made them. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To the obvious answer "why don't I make the article", I have to sort out this mess first before I even attempt that. I already have a reliable offline source or two on my bookshelf. Si Trew (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Australian Empire[edit]

Australia is not an empire. This used to redirect to Castle Hill convict rebellion but I don't see any mention of the concept of an Australian Empire advocated by either side of that conflict, thus I think this is just misleading. Hoping the creator can provide insight. Ivanvector (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is Austrian Empire a possible {{R from misspelling}}, or (even if?) is it only confused for humorous purposes? Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If we're talking the real world, that's certainly possible as a R from misnomer/misconeption as I've seen it donte IRL, and it also shows up in comedy routines. (and even more often with just plain "Austria/Australia" ) I'm not sure about on Wikipedia though. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I did mean in the real world. Thanks for clarifying that. Si Trew (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Aye, but that would be a WP:SURPRISE. Fine in a comedy routine (where the audience usually knows the difference but the stooge doesn't) but not in an enncyclopaedia, would you not say? Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If it were used notably in a fictional work (or comedy routine, e.g. Eastasia) then it could be redirected to that work, but I'm not aware of such a use here and the term is probably too generic to identify one particular work anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I only threw it out in case someone had a good idea, but patently it is not a good idea. I do note that the long-running comedy act "the United Nations" has managed to confuse the two places (but not empires):
But even that would need a crowbar to force it in. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 The redirect might cause confusion. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore or delete. No, this was not intended as a misspelling or based on humorous reference. The leader of the Castle Hill convict rebellion was declared "King of the Australian Empire". I just added that to the article for clarity; not sure why I didn't make sure that was in there in the first place (sorry about the confusion). I think it would be better to delete than point at Australia, since the internationally recognized country of Australia has as far as I know has never been commonly called an empire. I originally made the redirect because it points readers at the entity where this term was actually used, in case they encounter an oblique reference to it, like in a trivia contest or historical text or something. My preferred resolution would thus be to restore it to the original target. -- Beland (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have restored Beland's revision since the retarget to Australia was done by a sockpuppet of a banned user, per the guideline at WP:EVADE. Given Beland's rationale I support keeping the target to the rebellion article, but I'm also not opposed to deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note. And I've struck out and added what you have retargeted at the top of this listing. I think it still holds, though, that although it is mentioned there, it is not a particularly useful term, though it is mentioned at target (as one person crowned "King of the Australian Empire", which I note is redlink). Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was toying with various things for Australia in the British Empire, but none seems good. There are lots of articles about Australia at the British Empire Games of various years, but none I think would be obvious or suitable targets. Australian Colony and Australia (Colony) are both red, too. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment' The other thing that sprang to mind was News Corporation, run by that well-known American citizen, Rupert Murdoch. e.g.:
Folkenflik, David (5 April 2012). "The Roots Of An Empire: Rupert Murdoch's Australia". NPR (formerly National Public Radio). Retrieved 22 January 2015. 
But that still seems stretching it a bit. Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Product lifecycle (disambiguation)[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 User:Beeblebrox Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete "Product lifecycle (disambiguation)", which is a redirect; it is totally pointless Pol098 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per WP:RFD#D2. The target was converted from an R to a DAB page on 5 November 2010, by User:Tikiwont, here. User:RussBot then created the "(disambiguation)" R nine days later, and it seems to have slept happily ever since: the target is no longer a DAB but an article (conversion starting around here in September 2012).
It seems to me to have the "(disambiguation)" to a page that is no longer a DAB page is confusing, hence WP:RFD#D2 The redirect might cause confusion. But it has slept happily for a few years, so perhaps it is harmless. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. It is certainly harmless, I proposed it be done away with as it serves no purpose whatsoever, just clutters WP and adds a page. Just tidying, not important. Pol098 (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I note that PROD and CSD have both been tried on this recently, so it has ended up here. User:Steel1943's CSD is still open as I write (nominated 20 January), but I write this because I am guessing that will be declined because a discussion is open. If not, of course, this is speedy close. Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment And Product lifecycle management, to which it once R'd and then DAB'd, still seems to me a good candidate for a merge, but I'll wait to propose that until the outcome of this. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 19[edit]

NWA Australian National Championship[edit]

Redirect is part of a tactic by User:Pidzz to use IP socks to create non notable articles. Deletion is needed to short circuit this. Title is not notable and not a common enough term to warrant a redirect - and Pidzz needs to be closely watched for future moves like this one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See also NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship where his IP sock has been active and then redirected also! Adding as a bundle. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Refuse jurisdiction. This is not a place to discuss an WP:EDITWAR, that should go ideally to the talk pages of the two users involved, and if not, escalate up through to WP:ANI or something. This is an editorial dispute and allegations of WP:SOCK should be made at the appropriate places, not here. There is no way to sort the redirect until the dispute itself is sorted. I don't see the bundle to which the nominator refers. I don't see from its history that it was the result of a page move, and certainly is not marked as {{R from move}}, no bot has been involved with it, and it seems a useful {{R from fulll name}}. I'm minded of WP:NPA also. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'll withdraw it and I'll restore the edit that wasn't a redirect - and send it to AfD instead. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I got a bit trigger-happy having done my first non-admin close, and closed this one thinking it had been restored to an article, and closed as procedural close as withdrawn by nominator. But as it stands it is still an R and those things have not been done, so it should stand here until they are. My fault. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Now you can do it. I've changed the redirection to the article for AfD as that's more appropriate, and should the AfD go "delete" I can bring it back here under the correct jurisdiction. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Curse of Fenric: As far as I see you have not restored it to an article, and in its brief life it never has been an article, but always a redirect with it being retargeted several times. I was misled, but I thought you were going to change it from a redirect to an article, but you retargeted to NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship (Where it lay a few days ago). I see from the edit history it was created on 15 January and then you nominated here on 20 January, then IP editor 59.101.110.240 changed the target, then 138.217.67.149 listed it again here on 22 January. I think, then, we are only discussing the redirect not its content? It can go WP:RFD#D8 as "a very novel or obscure synonym", but as it stands it is still a redirect and not an article.
I can see your bind in that you want these deleted and I in no way think that you are casting around for fora on which to discuss it; even WP:FORUM and WP:CANVASSING are not much help to you, and I neither. I do appreciate you are in good faith, but this does rather fall between the cracks in the pavement. Were it me nominating, I would stick with this one before you then do the other R's you alluded to: once we have consensus about generally what should happen, then it should be easier to refer back to consensus here or at AfD, but at the moment there is no consensus that I see. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
q.v. for example User:Oiyarbepsy's numerous listings here for Mojibake. They usually get deleted in my words by a "silent majority" because they're so obviously harmful that to discuss them makes them more difficult to delete. Having the broad consensus that Mojibake = Bad, we then only discuss individual cases (as for example I did with a couple for Pokémon). Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but I don't think I've nominated any mojibake redirects for deletion, but I have routinely voted to delete them. You might be thinking of User:Gorobay. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Haha Oiyarbepsy, yes I was, thanks for correcting me there. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

United States of Arabia[edit]

Not actually a thing. There is a concept of an Arab union (where the redirect now points) but it is only rarely referred to as "United States of Arabia". It appears to be used just as much to refer to the United States of America by news-radio loudmouths. Creator is a banned sock, but was not banned at time of article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as below, re United States of Britain - unrealistic search term, without a readily apparent single redirect target, created by user with rather bizarre agenda. Mabalu (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I flirted with United Arab Emirates, but surely Delete as WP:RFD#D8, "novel or obscure synonym". Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually I am not sure on this one. It could go to Saudi Arabia for that matter, but I am not sure (and we do have to be WP:CRYSTAL here) what would people want to find when they looked at it. I'm still inclined to delete or DAB it maybe, so I've made a draft at Draft:United States of Arabia with just these two so far (obviously that wouldn't be a good DAB as it stands). This one is perhaps RS:
But that is a Saudi-owned state channel is perhaps primary source, I am not sure that matters here in that we are not discussing its content but the fact that the Saud kingdom itself says "United States of Arabia" in its own literature, and in that sense is reliable as a source for what the Saud government/kingdom says, but as that is a primary source. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added that at the draft DAB. DABS don't usually have, but sometimes have, references: this is a holding draft and I would add references etc. into the article, depending on the result of this discussion, so I don't want to do so right now. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Whmm, what might queer my pitch there is that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia went and died on me, I wrote the above before he shuffled off the mortal, but I can see it might somehow seem as a POV, which it certainly wasn't. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

United States of Britain[edit]

Misleading. Created by a sock of a banned user, but not banned at the time of creation, so WP:G5 doesn't apply. Ivanvector (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

World dictator[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 World domination. Non-admin closure by Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect created by suspected sockpuppet. Current target is World government. However, the idea of a world dictator is typical of this editor and his sockpuppets' rather problematic, disruptive and contentious edits and created redirects. Mabalu (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as useless. Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5 revised, see below User is a banned sock, redirect is useless and there is no meaningful history. Ivanvector (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector - this user has made a LOT of bizarre redirects under their socks. Can I request a speedy on these using G5 criteria? Mabalu (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say so, unless they are useful, but I'm not an admin. This one is nonsense and probably misleading, but perhaps Extradition in the United States redirecting to Extradition law in the United States is a useful redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are SOME reasonable redirects, but others are just bizarre. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, now I have to try out my first non-admin close, so wish me luck (this is a placeholder so I can at least undo back to this one!). Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to World domination, where the current target and several others are enumerated. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget as above - good find once again. Ivanvector (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I like the suggested redirect target. I'm sure a sock will be along to redirect it back to their chosen page but that works. Mabalu (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so sad, whatever the outcome of this, you can at least refer to this consensus, so then you can boldly continue. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose to speedily close as retarget, the nominator agrees with my proposal, and seems to be WP:SNOWBALLing. @Lenticel:, do you agree (as it stands your agreeing with a delete that the nominator no longer agrees with)? Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 17[edit]

Banque de terminologie du Québec[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • NOTE the accent-removed and "(c)" forms were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) as redirects for typos of the mojibake forms, so are even worse, as they aren't even mojibake, but typos of mojibake. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was going to be silent on these mojibakes and let them go delete by default (and I hope this comment is not taken to queer that pitch), but the Pokémon ones piqued my interest: since "Pokémon" is a transliteration for Japanese ("ポケモン") – presumably one deliberately chosen since "É" is rare in English orthography – are there any even more bizarre mojibakes that mojibake the katakana itself? Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Update crime groups Philippines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was : Deleted, implausible redirect, article has been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Organized crime in the Philippines itself has been redirected to Crime in the Philippines. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

strange title created by sock puppets Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I moved the article to the more appropriate title; the redirect may be deleted. (I kept it for a while so that the original title is visible.) No opinion on the article itself; I see nothing immediately wrong with it, even though it may have been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete R3 as an implausible typo, and G5 as created by banned user. CrowCaw 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

African American transsexuality[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. Back in 2006, this was an article, and its AfD closed as redirect. The article was actually deleted and the title recreated as a redirect, though. It's not mentioned at the target article, so it's definitely misleading as is. Restoring the old article is also an option. I've undeleted its revision history, so anyone can take a look at it now. Pinging the AfD's closing admin, Dominic; I'm sure he remembers the eight-year-old case like it was yesterday. BDD (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Help:Namespace[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what mean, it's a cross-namespace redirect to project page. 333-blue 14:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I find this useful. It allows helpers to link the term "namespace" when writing messages for new users, without first having to check whether the help page is in the Help or Wikipedia namespace. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty bullish about deleting CNRs, but the distinction between Help and Wikipedia namespaces is so blurry. I can't think of another pair of namespaces with so much overlap. And I'm fairly certain I've used this redirect myself. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above 122.107.133.47 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm practically the standard bearer of no cross-namespace redirects but even I think this is a practical redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Uldus Bakhtiozina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was : Deleted per below. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

unnecessary redirect from wikipedia namespace to article namespace DexDor (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The article draft seems to have been moved to Wikipedia namespace by a mistake. I thought about merging the histories, but this doesn't seem to be strictly necessary - the main author of the draft also edited Uldus Bakhtiozina to post his version of the article there. I think the redirect can be safely deleted. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this was created as a fork of the articlespace article in DRAFTspace and then accidentally moved to WPspace -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pulse Blade[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a concept related to the target that is neither is synonymous with the target article, nor mentioned at the target article. Also, it seems that this redirect was previously an article, but the article seems like a violation of WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Just from Googling the term, there are other uses, but it seems the Mortal Kombat usage is specific to the characters Cyrax and Sektor. It's mentioned (but only just) in both of those articles, though I don't know how we'd choose between them. If Energy sword is converted to an article, perhaps it could be discussed there. (Is that how you found this?) --BDD (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Nope. I just, from time to time, look at random articles with popular video game subjects to see what redirects point towards them that seem to either be misleading or not explained well enough at the redirects' target to justify the redirects' existence. The fact that I, in a short amount of time, nominated two similar redirects that point to two different video game subjects is pure coincidence. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nobama[edit]

I was surprised that this term isn't mentioned on the target page. I somewhat expected a Criticism of Barack Obama page, but it redirects there as well. The only mention of the term on Wikipedia is at List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans. Too trivial to retarget there? I'm not sure. At this point, I'd be fine with that or deletion. BDD (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, "NOBAMA" is listed at that target, not "Nobama". I was not trying to be picky but having inadvertently left case-sensitive search on, I couldn't find it at first, since it's not R to section ("Critical slogans"). If retargeted, make it R to section. (Not sure that's a great section title when the rest are chronological, but that's a matter for the A not the R.) Si Trew (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
To spare anyone else a confused comment, "NOBAMA" is mentioned on the list of slogans, not Criticism of Barack Obama. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Kirchner un speech[edit]

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

Agree and Yes check.svg Done. Mhhossein (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That was hasty: With your page move, the vestige Kirchner un speech became a double redirect, the RfD tag went missing, and the RfD tag at Kirchner UN speech pointed to a nonexistent section of this page.
I've done all that (here, here and here). But it would have been simpler to create a new redirect than to move the existing one. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The original article has been AFDed, does that automatically include the redirect? Serten (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
If the original article is deleted, all redirects leading to it should be speedily deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - don't seem to be any other targets. Can be disambiged in the future if necessary, but I don't see a need to be preemptive. WilyD 10:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The AfD closed as merge, and the former title now redirects straight to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. This probably should now be deleted; had the AfD closed as delete, this would've happened anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Kirchner un speech (search will auto deal with that if we keep the other), Keep Kirchner UN speech which seems a possible/likely search term. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. My worry is that "Kirchner" seems like a German name and "und" is the German for "and", so that "Kirchner un" would seem a reasonably likely start and then the search engine or dropdowns fill in the rest, if you are not careful. (I don't think Kirchner is German, but "Kirchner" is indeed a {{surname}} DAB which says it is of German origin; obviously "Cristina Fernández de" is not German.) Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Example: "Kirchner und Koch" were a small-arms manufacturer based in Bavaria in the late 19th century. Now I just made that up, but can you see how someone might search for that and be led astray? Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackbird (song)[edit]

Not sure what the best idea is for this. This redirects to The Beatles song (which is probably the primary use), but there is also a song section on Blackbird (disambiguation) Blackbird. I think either one of the following should come to pass:

This was moved by Tassedethe, who I am pinging for input as well. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, with {{R to section}}. I think Bye Bye Blackbird at the DAB should be hoist from "See Also" to "Songs and compositions" (that's what I first thought of, and was surprised not to see it listed there?). But no one here can love and understand me. Oh, what hard-luck stories they all hand me. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I just went bold and did it. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what your position is, keep it as a redirect to the further disambiguated title (why are we redirecting (song) to (Beatles song)), or change it to link to the DAB page Blackbird with R to Section? Note I fixed my statement above, the page in question doesn't end in (disambiguation). --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was in two minds and that was confusing: so Retarget to anchor Blackbird (disambiguation)#song – I've added the anchor to Blackbird#Songs and compositions already, but that doesn't prejudice this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions per {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Mt first thoughts were the songs by the Beatles and the Wurzels. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is, as a primary topic, getting the majority of searches to the desired target. Having "Beatles song" inside the bracket will help people who know about other songs to realize which one this is. Siuenti (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm with the nominator; this is the only outcome which is unacceptable to me. Either the Beatles song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Blackbird (song)" and its current title is over-precise, or it is not the primary topic, and "Blackbird (song)" should go to a dab. Extra disambiguation goes against WP:CONCISE and PRIMARYTOPIC. We wouldn't have Barack Obama redirect to Barack Obama (politician), and we wouldn't have Washington (state) redirect to Washington (U.S. state). --BDD (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
But we might have Thriller (album) redirecting to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). However, I don't mind if the Beatles song goes to "Blackbird (song)". Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
But we do. Thriller (album) does redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Looking at the R's history, it was discussed here at RfD, and closed as Keep. Not much has changed since, or am I mistaken? Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that page being at the longer title does not necessarily make this page being at the shorter title incorrect, or vise versa. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, it does. I think the Thriller decision is wrong too. It seems plain to me that there can be "sub-primary topics", i.e., primary topics for disambiguated terms. "Thriller (album)" is definitely one; I suppose "Blackbird (song)" is too, though I haven't looked into it. Some editors, especially those active at RM, reject this notion, hence the current titles, but many are unwilling to follow through with that idea and truly treat the former title as ambiguous. As long as the shorter titles continue to redirect to the individual album/song instead of a disambiguation page, it's a clear violation of naming conventions. Unfortunately, there hasn't been the political will to call this out at RfD, perhaps because of the large effort involved in fixing incoming links. But that's right there in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a good reason these pages shouldn't've been moved in the first place. </rant> --BDD (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
BDD, you are preaching to the choir. I am in complete agreement that the shorter title is the correct title, or the shorter title should redirect to the DAB page not the longer title (per primary topic). My point was more that we don't use precedents or other stuff exists arguments on Wikipedia, and simply saying that Thriller is at MJ album whilst the shorter title album redirects there is not the proper way to make one's point, rather one should use a policy/guideline based arguments. As you have done.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Got it. I misread your above statement. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Um if BDD says "We wouldn't have Barack Obama redirect to Barack Obama (politician)" I'm entitled to refute that by pointing out a redirect which is more similar to the current case (because of the necessity for disambiguation) and goes in the direction I am suggesting. I have made my argument by pointing out why I think readers benefit from this situation, I would like to here how people would benefit from the move BDD is suggesting. Siuenti (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If both "Blackbird (song)" and "Blackbird (Beatles song)" go to the same place, and that destination has a hatnote, it really doesn't make much difference. Readers searching for a different "Blackbird" song would still see the Beatles one first. As long as that's the case, the more WP:CONCISE term should be the page title. That isn't a fringe idea of mine; it's part of our core naming criteria. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, then, retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions or move Blackbird (Beatles song) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as-is. Sorry, my logic might be hard to follow here. Per WP:SONGDAB, songs should be disambiguated with "(song)" unless further disambiguation is needed, which is the case here because there are many songs by this name and many are not covers of the Lennon-McCartney work. Therefore, "(Beatles song)" is the proper disambiguator for the article. The Beatles song is the obvious primary topic, as most Beatles songs (and especially White Album and later songs) are, so it's appropriate for "(song)" to redirect to the Beatles song article, with a hatnote targeting to the dab page. (See Hurricane (song) for an example, or see Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) for a controversial one.) I'm not so sure that the dab page should be at Blackbird without (disambiguation) but it's done so let it be. Ivanvector (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, there's the rub. What does "Use further disambiguation if needed" mean? Some editors interpret this to mean whenever there's more than one song in existence with the same title. Others, like me, take this in the context of the whole disambiguation guideline—most importantly for these purposes, that's including the primary topic. So if there's a song that's "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", why should it matter if "that term" already has a qualifier like (song)? I admit that there's no explicit convention for this idea of "sub-primary topic", but neither is there any official guidance contradicting it. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
As you said, I interpret the guideline to mean "whenever there are multiple songs with the same title", without regard to primary topic, based on the example given in the guideline and on apparent precedent. I also interpret it to mean "whenever a song title might be confused with some other article", for example Helter Skelter (song) could quite possibly be considered primary for "Helter Skelter" but it is disambiguated anyway, and Helter Skelter is a dab page. And it makes sense to me that every song by a certain title be disambiguated by the artist if there are multiples, even if one is the primary topic. The primary topic gets the (song) page redirected to it, or in other cases where none of the songs is primary then the (song) redirect goes to a "Music" section of a dab page (I think Yesterday (song) is like this currently, although it's up for debate and may have changed by the time you read this). I think that makes it easier for maintenance as well - if a song is no longer the primary topic or a different song becomes the primary topic then it's just a matter of retargeting the redirect, rather than a series of kludgey page moves. I don't think that it necessarily contradicts the disambiguation guideline or the concise titles guideline, or if it does then it's a good case for ignoring those guidelines. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions as an {{R to disambiguation}}, the discussion here seems to indicate that there is some confusion/uncertainty over what the primary topic is so R to disambig is the best solution. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think there's any confusion there. I think consensus here is that the Beatles song is the primary song topic, but not the primary topic overall. Do other editors think that's accurate? Ivanvector (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore, that is move Blackbird (Beatles song) over the redirect. That has been the status quo since the article was created in March 2005, and there are a number of articles which expect Blackbird (song) to go straight to the Beatles song. The Beatles song is primary, so that has to be the target. There is no need to further disambiguate per precise. We have precise to save readers and editors from having to type unnecessary words. By all means have Blackbird (Beatles song) and Blackbird (The Beatles song) redirect to Blackbird (song) in case someone tries that as an initial search, but let's keep disambiguation titles as crisp and easy to use and follow as possible, and provide some consistency for readers and editors so they know what to type. We have guidelines, let's follow them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Observation - to my point somewhere above and for editors who may be interested, the discussion on the proper article title for the Beatles' song "Yesterday" has concluded with a result that the article is located at Yesterday (Beatles song). The redirect Yesterday (song) was retargeted there, but I'm not sure that happened as a result of the discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this. I've reverted that retargeting. The issue has been too contentious in the past and should be discussed at RfD if it's going to be retargeted. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

highly POV redirect for deletion Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Islamic State. The lede has a concise description of its meaning in the modern sense, in the second para. But even if kept, Ion't see how it's POV: the first sentence of caliphate defines it as "a form of Islamic political-religious leadership", which seems fairly NPOV. (And redirects don't have to be neutral, anyway: they just have not to be misleading). Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Let me address these all together if possible. The name "Islamic State" was chosen by the terrorist group to say they are the worldwide rulers of all Muslims (see Worldwide caliphate and all governments are void when they arrive. The IS name has been rejected by the international community. The UN's BK Moon called them the Un-Islamic Non-State. The French use DAESH - an acronym equal to ISIL. Obama said we should not call them the Islamic State in a national speech globally reported. ISIL threatens to cut out the tongues of anyone who refuses to use Islamic State. Wikipedia went through multiple debates and repeatedly rejected Islamic State and variations both for the page name and through RfCs for all references to the group unless the name was qualified. A page move request moratorium was imposed (see top of the ISIL talk page for moves and details. So please don't redirect any of these to Islamic State which is itself redirected to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already. Please deleted the ones I've nominated for deletion unless a really good reason can be found for keeping them-like the redirect gets a lot of traffic or something. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I should love to take these en masse, but they have to be taken individually:
  1. You have listed them individually. (You can combine them, and have in the past.)
  2. Some have different merits from others.
  3. You don't provide any evidence for your claims. If it has had RfC, move discussions, etc, refer us to them. Habeas Corpus and all that.
If you say "The French use DAESH" you might, for example, give fr:DAESH – which I see having checked does not exist, although rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daesh says it is "known throughout the Arabic world by that name" – so that I dispute the claim that the French, or at least the French-language Wikipédia – call it that. Perhaps you got that idea from this article:
  • "France says the name ISIS is offensive, will call it Daesh instead". The Week. 17 September 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2015. The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord") 
So let's follow what France24 says:
  • "French govt to use Arabic ‘Daesh’ for Islamic State group". France24. 18 September 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2015. Last week, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asked journalists and media organisations to do the same. He said: “This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it ‘Daesh’ and I will be calling them the ‘Daesh cutthroats’.” His first press release using the name was issued on Monday. 
So let's see what his press release linked in that quote says:
He has used "Daesh", or at least his copywriters have, not "DAESH" (which is redlink at EN:WP as I write this, but I bet not for long: that caps is used at he target, and would be a sensible {{R from other capitalization}}, but let's not add more salt to the fire.)
fr:Daesh redirects to fr:État_islamique_(organisation), which is Interwiki linked to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. fr:DAESH is redlink. Apparently nobody of note calls it DAESH.
As for:

don't redirect any of these to Islamic State which is itself redirected to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already

The briefest of glances shows that Islamic State is not a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, it is an article that does not even mention "Levant" beyond the hatnote directing to that target, nor "ISIL" at all. I read the top of the ISIL talk page and that is why I said it had a moratorium, I read through the articles listed on that moratorium and this, actually, is not one of them. I agree with your general sentiment that a lot of these are POV, but it is on you to show it. Even if they were, WP:RNEUTRAL kicks in: you need to show (or at least plausibly argue) that they are misleading or hinder a search. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to caliphate, since a caliphate is "The Islamic state", as there should be only one caliph at any one time, and it is "The" state for the Islamic world. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This could refer to the concept of Islamic state just as easily as it could a Caliphate. It's an X or Y situation. "The Islamic State (Caliphate)" is an unlikely search term, and any reader using it would be better served by search results. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete Google turns up a million entries so many people just might search this way. A redirect doesn't mean the phrase is the right one. Indeed it may mean just the opposite, thus the redirect. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
How are you searching? "the islamic state caliphate" only returns 35,300 hits, shrinking to 31,200 with a -wikipedia operator. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Corrected. After looking at a wiki search result, I believe it is hard to tell which choice the reader wants -- search result is better than a redirect. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lipsitz[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. The AfD was closed as merge, but no merge was carried out. Any editor interested in doing so may get in touch with me. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RDELETE reason #10: the target article contains no mention of the named person. (Redirect was created after a deletion discussion in 2010.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aušra[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment the "(r)" and accent stripped forms were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are typo-formatted mojibake, so aren't even real mojibake, and are much worse, as they aren't even real. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Audiovisual Communicators, Inc.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The page was deleted before as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiovisual Communicators, Inc. Well, is it OK for the page to be redirected to DWRX? It think it's not. The radio network also owns & operates DYBT & DXBT. The page is also one of the favorite targets of Bertrand101 so it should be salted if deleted (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101). theenjay36 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Admin comment No comment as to whether it should be deleted (etc) or not but whatever the outcome I'd prefer it not be protected per WP:BEANS. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per consensus at Afd. Creating a redirect to one of its stations when we have articles on several doesn't make any sense. None is the primary topic, and I don't think disambiguation is a good solution. Delete per IAR if you like. Not sure what to do about salting - I'm inclined to say no per WP:DENY but if a known LTA is going to make work recreating it then it might be better to salt - I'm not sure which would be the bigger troll cookie, so we might as well make it easy on ourselves. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 14[edit]

Islamic State (organization)[edit]

rejected name in move discussion. should be deleted and salted Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_5#Move and your second comment is another spelling of organization. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for the ref: it was closed as no consensus to move. And indeed, pace Galileo, and yet it does not move.
  2. Blow me down, so it is. Perhaps it should be created as an {{R from alternate spelling}}, then. The fact it hasn't been may have some bearing on why these R's have been created haphazardly and not consistently, using the well-tried blunderbuss approach. I still see no sign of those move discussions. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll retarget as suggested. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't see how this is at all a misnomer. Many, many redirects would not work as their target articles' titles for one reason or another, so that's a very poor argument for deleting a redirect. And to say that the general political idea of an Islamic state "is a type of organization" is a huge stretch. Is the United States an organization? Sort of, but you'd almost never call it that because it's at least mildly misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The United States is a Federal Republic, which is a type of organization, so would you say a Federal Republic is a type of organization? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Technically, yeah, but if I met someone who had never heard of the US, I would never say, "It's this organization..." and I wouldn't expect it to be labeled as such on an encyclopedia either. That's why I said this was "a huge stretch" and "mildly misleading", but not quite an outright falsehood. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, it'd be "Federal Republic" that is equivalent to "Islamic State" and not "U.S." if we treat "Islamic State" as title-case capitalization, for which redirects are created for frequently. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep similar to Islamic State (militant group) Jason from nyc (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

both parts of this name are POV and were repeatedly rejected in requested moves Legacypac (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Islamic State, where the modern-day notion of a caliphate is discussed in 2nd para of lede.
@Legacypac: which requested moves? There's Nothing on the target's talk page, and nothing on the redirect's talk page. I note on the target's talk page that it has a moratorium on requested moves until 7 January, but this is not one of the things listed. (I'd consider a bold retarget tantamount to a requested move from the point of view of the moratorium, but there isn't and shouldn't be a moratorium on discussing it.) Si Trew (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to caliphate which is a type of Islamic state -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to caliphate. It makes a suitable redirect for that. Mhhossein (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to caliphate per anon.--Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This could refer to any type of Islamic state just as easily as it could a Caliphate. It's an X or Y situation. "Islamic State (Caliphate)" is an unlikely search term, and any reader using it would be better served by search results. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. "Islamic State" (capitalized) refers to the entity calling itself that, not a form of government. Better served by search results. Ivanvector (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As a redirect, it's simply alternate capitalization, and is not specific to an entity which calls itself "Islamic State", since it is simply title-case capitalization. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As nom, I'm good with Delete or Retarget to caliphate. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Better served by a search result rather than guess what the reader wants. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think someone would be looking for the generic term "caliphate" in the unlikely event that this was searched. This is a redirect from a page move, so that's why it is redirected to ISIL. Here's the logic here: last summer, ISIL declared that they wanted to be known as simply "Islamic State," and they also declared themselves a "caliphate." Someone wanted the page moved to simply Islamic State because that was their new official name, but needed a disambiguation and chose "Caliphate." However, there are a few problems with this. 1. "Islamic State" isn't the group's WP:COMMONNAME (it's been widely criticized and condemned). 2. ISIL isn't a caliphate, it's a rebel group. (See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism of the name "Islamic State" and "caliphate" declaration for details). 3. "Caliphate" shouldn't be capitalized anyway. This entire redirect is a whole lot of wrong, isn't neutral, and therefore we shouldn't keep or retarget it. Tavix |  Talk  05:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blues guitar playing[edit]

Employing a slide is only one of many musical techniques involved in playing blues on a guitar, and it is not the only musical genre which employs the technique. I suggest this should be retargeted to Blues. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, those should be here too. I'm sure there's a case for creating an article on blues guitar (we have jazz guitar and rhythm guitar for example) but there isn't one currently, and the one that is in the history of blues guitar playing is a start but isn't sufficiently differentiated to not be simply merged into the blues article. Actually, I'll suggest moving "blues guitar playing" to "blues guitar" so that the history is there in case anyone eventually wants to build that article, but leaving it as a redirect to blues for now. Ivanvector (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, I'd support that. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Looks like I added that back in 2009, but is hard to find RS for this common expression. Here is one that is not very RS from h2g2: "Orchestral Percussion - the Kitchen Sink Department". h2g2.com. 24 June 2014. Retrieved 9 January 2015. [unreliable source?]
  • Alternatively, I looked at the incoming links to the redirect. Generally, this term is used in articles referring to blues musicians (e.g. "Blind Joe Reynolds was an American singer-songwriter and blues guitarist" - last link piped to the redirect). Absent a specific blues guitar technique article, this can easily refer to the genre. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom or delete per WP:REDLINK. I agree that this deserves its own topic. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alternate proposal: move blues guitar playing -> blues guitar, then restore this revision. That revision doesn't make for a very good article but it is a decent starting point for one, and preserves the revision history. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. I'm not really sure that an article should be created on this topic, but the one that was redirected shouldn't be it. It was basically a history of the blues with a one sentence definition. Removing the general history, it boils down to WP:NOTDICT. Tavix |  Talk  05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

2024 in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted by RHaworth (G7). --BDD (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not useful redirect. I don't think anyone will be searching for "2024 in the United States" as it is 9 years in the future. Looking at the creator's contribution history, it appears that he (or she) has created a number of redirects for future years. I suggest that all those be deleted as well. This page, and other pages can be recreated when the year approaches. Natg 19 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's an odd WP:CRYSTALBALL redirect, and it's not even pointing to the correct target, which doesn't even exist per ... WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and delete the others as well. These lists would be better as categories, but that's a different discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologise, because I do not know these redirects may breach the policy of Wikipedia. However, I believe some of them should be useful. I will highly appreciate, if the Admin can keep some of them. Thank you for your time and effort.--Coekon (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Balmont[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was dabify. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Balmont is a place in France: see the French version of Wikipedia. However at present anyone searching for Balmont is redirected to a page about the Russian poet Konstantin Balmont. AlanD1956 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. fr:Balmont is a disambiguation page that lists a former commune now absorbed into Seynod, a "place called Reyrieux" (Google translate, what does this mean though?), Florent Balmont, Martin Balmont (a fantasy writer), and the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. I fixed your interlanguage link, assuming that's what you intended. Lieu-dit is a traditional name for a small geographic area - "Balmont is a small named area in Reyrieux" (my very rough translation). Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dabify per Thryduulf.--Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If this get's dab'ed, I think Belmont should be added as an entry well.--Lenticel (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but it should probably be a see also rather than a dab entry. Ivanvector (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New Las Vegas Arena[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. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There have been several proposed arenas in Las Vegas in recent years, but none of them have used the name "New Las Vegas Arena", as far as I can find. The project to which it currently links was apparently properly called the Silver State Arena. If this is a descriptive title, it's an unlikely search term, as it's inherently ambiguous and unencylopedic (whatever is new now will not be new in 20 years). Toohool (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I think I misunderstood the nominator's rationale. @Toohool: Are you saying that a former working title for Silver State Arena was "New Las Vegas Arena", or that the redirect was created because it was going to be Las Vegas' newest arena? Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because after looking up this term on a popular search engine, the "Silver State Arena" was nowhere in my search results, so I will have to assume that the latter thought of my previously-raised question is true. If this gets proven otherwise during the course of this discussion, please assume that my vote is for "Retarget to Silver State Arena" instead. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have struck out my statements so that the nominator's request to withdraw this proposal does not seem controversial. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • After further research, I would like to withdraw this nomination. New Las Vegas Arena was created in 2007 as an article about the proposed Harrah's-AEG arena, the same one that is discussed in Caesars Entertainment Corporation. Only recently, it got rewritten to be about a different arena, the MGM-AEG arena. Then someone redirected it to MGM - AEG Arena, and then redirected again to the Caesars Entertainment section. Given the long history of this article name referring to the Harrah's-AEG arena and the apparent erroneous rewrite and subsequent redirection, I would propose to revert it to this version for now. (Silver State Arena is actually an unrelated third project, which I mistook because that article had an incorrect description of its location.) Toohool (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kitty Empire[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 revert to article. Since the page had previously been kept at AfD, it wasn't a good candidate for WP:D-R. Take to AfD if there are still notability concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned on target page. Originally listed at MFD for the same reason but moved here. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: an old Afd is here but I don't see anything under Miscellany for deletion on this. Did you mean something else by MFD? Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kitty Empire. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Close and restore article to this revision before the article was redirected by SNUGGUMS (pinging for notification). The old Afd provides more sources which could be used to improve the stub. Ivanvector (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen that AFD at the time I redirected. However, the sources used actually do NOT provide sufficient coverage to warrant an article. This is a piece she wrote herself (self-published sources don't establish notability) while the others only briefly mention her at all. I can't find any significant coverage on her from reliable secondary sources. She's definitely a plausible search term, but doesn't have sufficient coverage to have a separate article. I'm inclined to keep as redirect, though it might be worth a retarget to The Guardian. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, actually the sources in the AfD (specifically these two: [2] and [3]) are reviews by writers who happen to have mentioned that Kitty Empire also wrote a review. A mention can't get much more trivial. However, there are an astounding number of these trivial mentions of her reviews in reliable sources spanning a long time period. This leads me to believe that her work is highly regarded; there is very little written in reliable sources about her but she is nonetheless noteworthy. And I suppose this is an expected consequence of someone working under a pseudonym for 20 years. I think that leaving the stub would be fine in this case even based on the one reliable source. Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so much concerned about wikiarticle length as I am coverage about her. "Highly regarded" ≠ notable. Tons of things are held in high regard, yet don't meet notability criteria. The sources linked are reliable, but those do NOT give significant third-party coverage on her, and she fails WP:ANYBIO since I can't find any other source providing enough coverage about her specifically. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 12[edit]

File talk:Montgomery Alabama.jpg[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 blanked the page, the quickest resolution for talk pages that target the wrong page, especially in the "File talk:" namespace. I will leave a message on the nominator's talk page in regards to these redirects, and how the issue can be boldly resolved in this manner. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexpected redirect. The target talk page belongs to a different image. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete, as Stefan2 said, WP:SURPRISE and WP:RFD#D2, "The redirect might cause confusion". Best to be red and let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SURPRISE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Infobox Rice residential college[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unused and unnecessary redirect Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • keep to preserve attribution history. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Information.svg
Please note: I've relisted the discussion for Template:Infobox Yale residential college here, as it seems to be the same issue. Both were nominated at TFD on the same day and closed as merge on the same day. The votes above still only directly address the Rice infobox redirect, unless they're edited otherwise. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Linux distribution remix[edit]

Deletion - I never heard of "Linux distribution remix"-es, and Linux distribution certainly does not cover them in any case. Chealer (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well Google tells me they are a thing, and there is a page explaining Fedora remixes at [4] but which could apply to any distro. So, if there is coverage of this somewhere on Wikipedia the redirect should point to it. I haven't got time to look for it at the moment but I hopefully will later. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete because there is no information about them on Wikipedia and we should not mislead people into thinking otherwise. I'd recommend keeping this if there was somewhere to point this though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Retarget to List of Linux_distributions.
My search leads me to think the term "remix" is used mainly for Fedora and Ubuntu distros, but none of Linux remix, Fedora remix and Ubuntu remix exists. The entries in my proposed target that do use the term "remix" are:
Other redirects/articles that aren't in that list (redlinks are mine, they're not in the articles):
Of course, this list could replace the R as a DAB page... Si Trew (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanguk Dambaek Insam Gongsa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently incorrect romanization (see Special:diff/640726365). I don't read Korean, and, unsurprisingly, can't fnd any ghits for either this one or the one currently appearing in the target article. (Though it had this one until December 2012.) Well outside the WP:CSD#R3 window, in any case. —Cryptic 00:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's questioning which is the right one. It is whether this one is anything other than harmful. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not harmful. Si Trew, the only difference between the correct romanization and the incorrect romanization is but a single letter. Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Guye: indeeed, which is why I said Keep. Do you think my remarks sounded otherwise, somehow? (I am not being sarcastic.) Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Si Trew: Whoops sorry, I didn't think you were the one who said that Keep comment, I only saw your comment after Jytim's. The way you phrased your second comment seemed pro-delete and I only attributed that one to you. Again, sorry. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Interquel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Erpert blah, blah, blah... 11:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Delete. Appears to violate WP:NEO; which isn't helped by the fact that the respective target sections are not only unsourced, but neither term shows up in Webster's Dictionary: [5] [6]

  • keep at least for now. The redirect gets a lot of hits (440 last month for example), and it takes people using it to relevant content. If the target section is removed (which needs to be discussed at the article talk page, not here) then the redirect can be reevaluated. However, it doesn't matter if a redirect is a neologism or not, all that matters is whether it is plausible and there is somewhere relevant to point it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep these are redirects that are used in the wild (ie. outside of Wikipedia) in the entertainment press. They're not article titles, so they are valid search terms. And the target is the valid target for information about the terms (they are types of sequels) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the point people are missing is that the information in the target sections is all unsourced (and for the record, I didn't add the {{neologism}} tags to either section). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    Which people are missing the point? It was only listed 18 hours ago. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The point you are missing is that redirects follow content. While the content exists these are good redirects, regardless of the accuracy or sourcedness or any other characteristic of the content. If you think the content should be removed then get consensus for that at the article talk page. If the content is removed then the redirects will probably cease to be useful and be deleted (they might instead be retargeted if there is relevant content elsewhere, or converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary if there is something there but not here; but that is for a future discussion). For what its worth, wikt:interquel as durably archived uses going back to 1994, including a New York Times use from 1996, so I'm not sure that the neologism tag is accurate not that it is unsourceable. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Much as it pains me, the topics are explained and stated as neologisms. WP is not the Oxford English Dictionary, but we do no good to delete these terms. I was thinking Interval (theatre) (or US Interval (theater)) etc, the gap between acts at a play when one can enjoy oneself: But that's not at Interval (disambiguation), the nearest there I think being "In cricket, the breaks in between play", and that's confusing enough to pipe in a DAB. (WP:DABPIPE?) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Interval (play) is, unfortunately, the name of a play, and not the description of it, which is at Entr'acte. Intermission does in 1st sentence of lede say Br. Eng. "interval". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
For if not, I assume this is a euphemism for Writer's block. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 9[edit]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.[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. Arguments to keep were significantly stronger, and while this may not be an especially likely search term, it's unambiguous—a reader who did search for this term would undoubtedly be looking for the target article. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles should have the subjects name in the title, not the content of the article. This redirect is simply a reprint of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is a bit unnecessary. There's also a character limit surpassed here as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I created the other redirect which was deleted for some reason. By that logic, this redirect too must be deleted. It is rather long, and I realize that it makes little sense to expect a reader to type all of this out, punctuation and all, and make use of this redirect. A logical redirect is I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, but beyond that, there appears to be no good reason to keep. Dustin (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as too long. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the target is correct, it's not misleading or harmful in any other way and takes people using this to the content they are looking for. "Too long" is not a valid reason to delete anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The historical versions were deleted for this same reason. This redirect is almost inconceivable. See my suggestion. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Another thing to note is that the punctuation doesn't even appear to be correct, which just further lowers the likelihood that a user will use this redirect. Dustin (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is correct, not harmful, and possibly useful if one has the text of the pledge and no other knowledge. The fact that it's not likely to be used by some experienced Wikipedia editors is beside the point. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. "Too long" isn't necessary a good reason to delete since that means that someone may look it up, and incorrect punctuation allows others to look it up who may not type the correct punctuation, making it useful on both counts. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I added a tag for {{R from quote}} -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • delete I don't see the point of this given that the first GHit on the phrase is (unsurprisingly) our pledge article. The notion that it helps navigation in any way is somewhere between questionable and absurd. Seyasirt (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible search term Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shittsburgh[edit]

Not an established nickname. The term does not appear in the targeted article or in the List of city nicknames in Pennsylvania. Created by a confirmed (now banned) sockpuppet. Phleg1 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • keep, this is offensive but it is established (22k ghits, this redirect has existed since 2007, this usenet message dates from 1995, etc) and plausible - this is basic juvenile humour, and in almost every month gets more hits than background noise. So, given that the target is correct and it is not misleading there is not actually any reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • And "New York Shitty" gets 82k Google hits; "Suckramento" gets 83k; "Shitcago" 38k; "Penisylvania" 113k; "West Vagina" 40k -- but reliable evidence that Shittsburgh and these other potty portmanteaus are "established" is slim to nonexistent. Would they be useful redirects? I don't see how. Phleg1 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete an inappropriate redirect. If the city was a BLP it would be gone. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Firstly, there is a very good reason that BLP only applies to people, and because Pittsburgh is not a person (living or otherwise) the BLP is entirely irrelevant to whether this redirect should be kept or not. Secondly, see WP:RNEUTRAL - even if this were a BLP a redirect to the article would not necessarily be in violation of it. Thirdly, just because you say something is "inappropriate" does not automatically make it so - please explain why you think this should be deleted with reference to relevant facts. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Piers Moron redirects to Piers Morgan#Ian Hislop and Carter-Fuck redirects to Carter-Ruck#Critism, for example (although in both cases it might be better to retarget to Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye#Names intentionally misspelled or misstated). Peter Carter-Ruck is dead, but Morgan isn't. Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per User:Thryduulf and the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_2#Shottingham. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that Shottingham (and Piers Moron, Carter-Fuck) are actually discussed and sourced in their target articles. Phleg1 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bottom line: Nobody is going to search for Pittsburgh by typing Shittsburgh, and nobody looking for information specifically about the term Shittsburgh (not that anyone would) will find it in the target article. So the redirect is useless. Abusive but useful can be OK; abusive and useless isn't. Phleg1 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Shottingham has the RS'd content because of the RfD I mentioned above. So, here's an RS for you (well, a print newspaper with >30,000 circulation) that nicely demonstrates that the term is in popular use:
  • Breen, Mike (9 October 2013). "Hate, with a Passion". Cincinnati CityBeat. Retrieved 3 January 2014. But what followed was a sickeningly hypnotic barrage of pure Twitter hatred, born from passion but spiraling out of control. There were the heated defensive posts that painted Pittsburgh — sorry, “Shittsburgh,” as it was christened by many Reds fans that night — as a hellhole full of inbred brutes 
There are plenty of other mentions on the Internet, but not many RS. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If you look at the traffic statistics you will see that people actually do use this redirect (by definition therefore not useless) - in January-August/September in most years it gets significantly more hits each month (up to 25) than can be accounted for by bots alone (around 3-4 per month). Curiously it's much quieter October-December than the rest of the year - does this activity pattern correlate with a sports season perhaps? Or is Pittsburgh simply a nicer place to be during its autumn/winter (I've never been)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I went looking for a RS, there are none. I thought I found one at ESPN but is was in the facebook comments. Just because something exists does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. Let the Urban Dictionary cover it. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you saying the reference I gave is not RS? Si Trew (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think this redirect is going to help any readers find the targeted article, which is the point of redirects. If you are looking for "Shittsburgh", you probably already know it means "Pittsburgh" (even if you don't know, it is pretty obvious). If the target article talked about the history of the term, different story, but it doesn't mention the term at all. (I agree with other commenters that offensiveness is not a valid argument for deletion.) Also, I suspect the vast majority of the people who use the redirect already know what it means, they are just looking for a chuckle in seeing if Wikipedia recognises the term. SJK (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. (ec) I found RS for a couple of those suggested above:
The fact is, these terms are used. I don't know if redirects are the best solution, since we'd have to add WP:UNDUE content to the target articles – the "List of nicknames" articles would seem a better bet – but they should be mentioned somewhere. I think it's unreasonable to expect an accurate etymology for an obvious slang term like "Shittsburgh", which is probably as old as Pittsburgh itself. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I also think it's telling that the RS are from papers in the areas so-named. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as inappropriate and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It looks like consensus is leaning towards deletion here. Previous outcomes aren't binding, but for me, at least, they're reason to pause and see if stronger consensus can emerge. I wonder if a list like List of disparaging city nicknames would be viable. It may fail WP:SYNTH or WP:SAL, but it could be a target for such redirects that would allay concerns about the fundamentally disparaging nature of such names (which no one contests).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the only possible value in this redirect is for juvenile people to be able to come to Wikipedia and show a buddy "Hey if you type this in, Wikipedia takes you to Pittsburg" Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I asked you at the first round. Do you think the quote about the Shittsburgh Steelers is RS or not? I am not asking you if you agree with it, I am asking if you think it is an WP:RS. You didn't answer the first time, please can you answer at the second time of asking. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply - No not a RS A hyperbole use in an opinion piece by a sports writer is not a reliable source WP:NEWSORG."Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Retarget (this negates my vote at the last round) to List of nicknames for Pittsburgh, I did not want to add it there at the first round, but that is the obvious place to add it and then redirect this. I have found one RS and many more are there for the taking. In what way are they I should like to ask @Tavix: in what way is it inappropriate? In what way is it unhelpful? Seems helpful if someone types it to get to where it belongs. May be obvious to some, but the "sh" digraph is peculiar to English language and not necessarily known as a derogatory pun to others. Redirects do not have to be neutral; articles must. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment BDD I do contest that these names are disparaging. Often they are used by the inhabitants of the areas with a sense of ironic pride. The references from reliable sources that I gave above, for example, show that, and previous arguments about Gunchester and Sadly Broke (Bradley Stoke): "broke" meaning "penniless" and also "broken") tend to indicate these are used by their inhabitants not just disparagingly but ironically and somewhat proudly.I've escaped fromlived in those I mentioned. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but then they're examples of self-deprecating humor. A nickname doesn't have to come from the outside to be disparaging. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I must disagree with creating the "list of disparaging names...." How would one do that without RS? Lists don't in practice have to be RS. And the list, while incomplete, is so open to abuse with people putting in non-RS disparaging names for their own back yard that I think that is a bad idea. Put the R for the disparaging name to the article that mentions it. The fact I have RS on don't mention it is simply because I haven't added that section to the article, with RS, pending the outcome of this. Plenty of other geographic articles do mention disparaging names. The Smoke is an R to Smoke (disambiguation) which under Smoke (disambiguation)#Other says "London, aka The Smoke, colloquial name for the city to London". Now that DAB is a bit iffy in that the City of London and London are not the same thing (you can be in the city without being in the City), but leave that alone; it was called that because of it being smoky during the industrial revolution – rather disparagingly – but we don't have it listed as "disparaging term for London". See Clean Air Act 1956. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
We could enforce a standard that every entry would need a citation. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And how could we enforce that? Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The same way we enforce any list standard: monitoring, maybe some hidden text to warn users, and protection if necessary. It would be WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to vandalism, sure, but that in and of itself isn't a good reason not to create. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. List articles are, I presume, articles and so the usual WP:BRD etc can happily apply. I don't want to gaze into a crystal ball, but it just seems so open to people putting in disparaging terms that I am not sure if it would be helpful to attempt to create it. As User:BDD knows, I sometimes have a stab at creating something in draft space which occasionally then gets moved over redirects here, and I hope it's obvious I do so that if someone disagrees they have a peg to hang their hat on. But with this one, I don't want to make a draft since it's so open-ended. I know I'm not making argument very clear, but it just seems it's best not to have the list article, and redirect things to the places. To come clean, I created an R from Suckramento the other day (11 Jan), but took that to CSD this morning (13 Jan) because it was just me being POINTY, and was unfair of me to have created it. Nobody said so but I realised so, and it is quite rightly red again. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see this serving either of the uses for redirects (linking within articles and searching for a term) for any users carrying out a legitimate search or edit. Needlessly offensive without encyclopedic value.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NIИ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all. @Gorobay: Have you considered proposing a new speedy deletion criterion for these types of redirects on WT:CSD? Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Kü-K§Wistühüw. This is the spelling used in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography[7] and is therefore a likely search term. Pburka (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I reported the error to them. That said, they use this mojibake once, and for the entire rest of the article, spell his name correctly. I think that nearly everyone will recognize this as a computer error and search for the correctly spelled ones below it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Update: They e-mailed me back, thanking me for reporting the error and stated they would fix it. So, even more reason to delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Pburka, unless it's a display issue on my computer, this has already been corrected. I don't know if that affects your vote. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Either it's back or, more likely, I just didn't notice it the other day. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That dictionary spells it ⟨KĀ-K§WISTÜHÜW⟩, which is a different wrong spelling from the one nominated. Gorobay (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as mojibake. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the accent-stripped forms were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are much much worse than mojibake, since they are typos of mojibake, so aren't even real. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nightwish's eighth studio 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion - Non-standard way to search for album (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting #8: Novel or very obscure synonym for an article name) Mburrell (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If the numbers are correct, this is neither non-standard or obscure. If fact, it is highly likely that these names were used in discussion by the media before the name of the album was announced. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • keep per Oiyarbepsy. These should not be used as article titles prior to there being enough information to write an article, but given that articles exist there is no problem with having these are redirects. If they are incorrect they should be retargetted, but there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • excuse me, but I see no comment ioinion or addition here from Oiyarbepsy. Si Trew (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Take a look immediately above my comment and you'll see what Oiyarbepsy said (they didn't bold an opinion which is possibly why you've missed it). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, my stupidity. Not sure what to do with it though, if these are their sixth and eighth albums then they're harmless. Patently if the sixth redirected to the ninth, or the eighth to the tenth, that would be simply wrong. But as they are the sixth and eighth from a WP:BAND with WP:RS, I am veering reluctantly towards a keep. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
First sentence of Endless says "Endless Forms Most Beautiful is the upcoming eighth album" and therefore is a bit crystal. "Dark Passion Play" says at first sentence "Dark Passion Play is the sixth studio album by Finnish symphonic metal band Nightwish, released on 26 September, 2007 in Finland"
Endless is Crystal, Dark Passion Play isn't (but presumably has sod all to do with a Passion Play). Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:Sings written by Stefan Johnson[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. Since they're not true redirects, category redirects are discussed at WP:CFD. Let me know if you need a hand listing there. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This category is misspelled. An appropriate category has been created and all entries have been moved accordingly. There is not need for this misspelled category page. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Philology of the Soviet Union[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 changed to article. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this redirect is misleading; I thought it would describe the study of philology in the Soviet Union. A list of philologists in the Soviet Union is a related topic, but it doesn't really address what the search term suggests. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I added Linguistics of the Soviet Union to this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Convert to article I'd have to do some research first, but the Soviet Union actually applied some communist ideology to its study of linguistics and had some unique ideas that were not seen elsewhere. So an article is definitely justified here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But who will make it? If you do, make it a procedural close. If not, it is a pointless thing to say. I'd like an article about Penny Falls, and have researched and phoned and written to various instutions and companies to get their history and patents and so forth, and the British Toy Museum and Bally Manufacturing and whatnot, to no avail: that is why there is a red link. Everyone knows what penny falls are (and if they don't they can type it into Their Favourite Search Engine): no RS for them anywhere. Therefore red. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Hairy Tree[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) 15:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This was previously a redirect to Girvan, where this particular tree was located. The article used to have a paragraph about it, but that got deleted last October. Dule Tree doesn't mention it either, so there seems no reason to keep this redirect : Noyster (talk), 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete D2, misleading if no information at target. Tried to find people called Harry Tree etc. but none seems likely. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

N.Y.E. LA[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) 15:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to N.Y.E. LA (or similar - the source does not give the event an official title) without leaving the redirect; keep target the same. Ivanvector (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Yes check.svg Done, but with RFD tag moved back to nominated redirect so that this RFD can play itself out. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dreams of Stabbing and/or Being Stabbed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

January 6[edit]

Viti References[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 Nyttend Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This only existed as a page very briefly (after someone moved Viti to it incorrectly - it's been moved back now) and there aren't any incoming links to it, so there's no need to keep it as a redirect. Squinge (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleted. This was created to facilitate a copy/paste move (see explanation), so deleting it as G6, housekeeping, is a reasonable part of the cleanup process. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Umer Farooq[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 by Nick, assumably for speedy deletion criterion R2, and possibly G8. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete, it's a redirect from the mainspace to a draft. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking at this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area. So I actually know who these names refer to (or think I do; you can never be certain with these guys).
  • Delete. John Bower (Michael Bower). Either her son in law, Michael (presumably middle name John) Bower, or (more improbably) that chap's father.[8] No notable mention of either of them anywhere I could find.
  • Delete. Branch (Gamboa). Not sure whether this is referring to her son, Hazemach, or her husband (one of his aliases is Tzemach). Both of those names mean, AFAIK, something like "branch" in Hebrew. Son not notable, husband never referred to as Branch Gamboa.
  • Redirect. Mark Wellington. Mentioned as an alias, and cited to Forbes, in her husband's entry. He probably should have his own page, but that's a different matter. Redirect to Dominion_of_Melchizedek#Mark_Logan_Pedley.
  • Delete. Jack Williams (David Korem). Anyone searching for David Korem, her father-in-law, will find him, as there's a David Korem redirect. Jack Williams is one of his son's aliases,[9] but it hasn't been mentioned in his entry. Perhaps it should be, and a Jack Williams redirect added to the disam page, but it seems to be a minor alias if it's not mentioned in articles like the Forbes one.
  • Delete. David KorMAN & David Koram. Misspellings not seen outside of WP designed to redirect people searching for her husband's father, David Korem. There is a David Korman alias mentioned by the SEC (confusingly relating to his son, Mark),[10] but it seems to be a minor one as it's not mentioned in other sources like Forbes. Bromley86 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Indepedent Access[edit]

No relation to Garbage (band). Lapadite (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have been the title of a 1998 promotional single for the US market. Looking at a contemporary version of the discography article, it mentioned it at the time the redirect was created. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added {{R from misspelling}} to the first two. I don't know why the firs should go to a different place than the other two. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Access Independent Services. None has any internal wikilinks. Stats are at background noise level. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I think these would be very unlikely search terms for access-independent services. This is access which is independent; that is services which are independent of access. Search results would probably include that high up anyway. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Cubic statute mile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. “Cubic statute mile” does not seem to be a phrase in common use and in fact the Google hits for it mostly point to the redirect author’s single source. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • keep. Although the phrase is little used outside that one source (of dubious reliability at best) it is not implausible, and if someone does use it the target is the correct one. The redirect is too recent for there to be any reliable usage figures, particularly with the author's edits being analysed at ANI. None of these are reasons to delete and so there is no benefit to deletion, and a possible small benefit to keeping. When we have at least three (ideally at least six) full calendar months when this redirect is not listed at RfD and not subject to discussion elsewhere, then probably reliable usage figures will be available and it can be reconsidered if it turns out not to be used. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The chances of anyone searching for this non-existent unit are vanishingly small, let alone the chances of our desperate reader not then searching for "cubic mile". It's better to delete absurdities as soon as they're discovered than require editors to diarise the necessary details. NebY (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: probably fairly useless, but harmless and one of the least of our problems in the vexed area of silly units at the moment. It's not actually wrong, confusing, poorly written, or misleading, which sets it above a lot of other matter in this area. PamD 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources and very implasable term. Legacypac (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without modification, "mile" means "statute mile", so it's just an alternate name for "cubic mile". Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4, "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." The unit, as a derived unit, does exist (my Google even tops its search resuls with a handy conversion to cubic metres) and I could see it might be marginally useful to distinguish from a cubic nautical mile or some such. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to unambiguously direct readers to what they're looking for. Uncommon, but not implausible, search term. WilyD 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BLUE or WP:CK (common knowledge being that a mile in common usage is a statute mile), and per WP:CHEAP. Cubic mile describes the measurement of a cube measuring the exact length of 1 statute mile on each side (and not some other measure also called a mile, like a nautical mile or whatever) therefore "cubic statute mile" refers to exactly the same thing. I think that it would be impractical to measure a cubic nautical mile anyway, since it's based on the arc length of a meridian minute and that length changes with altitude. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
A nautical mile is 1,852 metres by definition. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I'm going off a historic definition. Imperial measurements are fun! Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Return of Donkey Kong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Return of Donkey Kong

Donkey Kong Crunch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Donkey Kong Crunch

The pro-life supporters[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 Anti-abortion movements (note that Pro-life is itself a redirect). --BDD (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This redirect's current target is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and every policy that applies specifically to redirects. Everymorning talk 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just redirect to Pro-life. No discussion necessary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have done this. Thanks for the suggestion Oiyarbepsy. Consider this discussion closed. Everymorning talk 03:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

You magazine[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 You (disambiguation)#Magazines. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tar pit.

That's all rather WP:SURPRISEing; has there been some kind of battle for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If so, whoever won has a phyrric victory. Seems to me if there are two magayines called "YOU" then hatnotes would serve the turn quite adequately. But then, the UK Mail on Sunday#Sections include a magazine called "You", and has done since I was just a glint in the milkman's eye, and that's used in a lot of references across Wikipedia, but not mentioned on the DAB at all. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget to the disambiguation page. As there are multiple magazines with this name, no obvious candidate for primary topic and an existing dab page that mentions both main contenders the solution should be obvious. You don't need an RfD discussion to add missing entries to a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Whether you like it or not I did all the work and I don't like that NiceGuy claims he had to clean up when I left a few entrails I was about to clean up in my old handed manual way with a list on my desk of which to do before a smartarse wizard beat me to it. You may be nice but you ain't clever. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

January 5[edit]

Striped jersey[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The article Striped jersey was created on 2 December 2014 by User:LesMarinières. It was listed at WP:PNT and I took it, and re-translated it instead of what I believe was a machine translation from fr:Marinière (vêtement). I have tagged the talk page with {{translated page}}, with the approprtiate version info. I have added back the images and links. I have created {{R from title without diacritics}} at Mariniere. I have checked and translated sources. I have augmented at Wikidata. Finally, I move the article after an WP:RM since I had created a redirect that I wanted reversed to put this at its proper title; I then request SPEEDY for this redirect under housekeeping WP:G6.

User:WilyD removed the speedy. But nothing links to it, nothing is likely to: too general a term, WP:RFD#D8, "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". You could well think by the name of this creator it might be a WP:PROMO but it seems not, perhaps just a marinere fan. I believe it ended up at this target when created solely because the machine translation translated it thus, but that's a bad translation. I've notified the creator in both bad French and worse English. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as the term is honestly too ambiguous to be helpful as the term "striped" is an adjective that could be used to describe more than one article listed at Jersey (disambiguation), or weak retarget to Jersey (clothing) as the best possible option for a topic on the disambiguation page that could be "striped". Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. I was thinking about retargetting this to referee but not all of them wear their iconic striped clothing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd support that retarget if we think it's a common term, but isn't "striped shirt" more common (though I can't find much RS for either)? e.g.
As you say, it's hardly universal to wear striped shirts to distinguish the referee – for example, Rugby football referees just wear a different colour if a team such as the All Blacks is playing – but that's not important if the term is a common synonym. Referee#Attire does say that "the vertical black and white stripes worn by referees in many North American sports" and later in the sentence "yellow/green/orange shirts" but does not say "striped shirt(s)" specifically. (Umpire redirects to Referee, so that's neither help nor hindrance). Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added those refs into Referee#Attire. That doesn't affect this (I think). Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Infobox Yale residential college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Infobox Rice residential college

Template:Infobox Rice residential college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Infobox Rice residential college

Us magizine[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. Natg 19 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this redirection. This is a less common misspelling. It's better to direct users to the existing redirection US magazines than to this typo. Stefan Weil (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to List of United States magazines where US magazines also redirects to. Weak since it has capitalization and spelling issues. I'm okay with Delete too. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. What would be a more common misspelling? Si Trew (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) That was a cheap jibe, I strike it out and apologise. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to List of United States magazines. I was thinking if there was a magazine called "US Magazine" with US meaning the United States, e.g. for American troops abroad, but can't find one. The lynchpin is whether "us" means the inflexion of "we", or the United States (I was thinking of You magazine as a parallel), but I suppose it is punning on being both. I note Us (magazine) goes to this R's existing target, Us Weekly, as does US Weekly with the caps US. There's a reference at the target (ref 7) where The Weekly Standard calls it "US Weekly" with the caps: are they related? I presume not since if so they'd be the first to insist they get the caps right. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as misspelling. US magazine redirects to Us Weekly, so this should too. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reason as BDD, Us magazine would, to me, suggest Us Weekly (in a simmilar manner to Us (magazine). A hatnote regarding the redirect could help, or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as misspelling. I think the hatnote is a good idea. I note Us magazine is red. Si Trew (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as both misspelling/plausible redirect and magazine's former name until 2000 when it wasn't a weekly. Nate (chatter) 15:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Royal Consorts of the the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England‎[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep the second, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete. These are redirects from article moves which fixed a typo (duplicate "the"). They are not useful for searching in WP. Stefan Weil (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all except as below per WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Attack of the the Eye Creatures, delete all others. AottEC is a common name for the film due to an error on the title card. ONR (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll go with that. It's not mentioned at the target right now, but here is an RS:
All the rest I search, although WP:V, are I think maybe not WP:RS. tvropes.org has a nice one of the title card at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/AttackOfTheEyeCreatures. @Old Naval Rooftops: either you are a consummate lurker at RfD, or your like bad movies too much... I am not sure whether to salute you or throw you overboard. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Siddheshwar(Siddharama)[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 the first six, keep the last one. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Redundant redirects. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep Shri Siddharmeshwar. I'm not sure if that's a full name or a title, but whichever it is a plausible search term. weak delete the rest as the missing spaces seem to suggest them not being very plausible, but I'm willing to listen to any contrary arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Siddheshwar has none other means.--333-blue 23:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RFD#D1, "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine". Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I think most are through a bout of well-intentioned page moves, with the occasional copy/paste edits (e.g. here. User:Steel1943 seems to have done most of the gnoming here at each of them, judging by their history. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj[edit]

These redirects are created merely out of devotion. No reasonable person will search these strings to go to the target article. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep all. These appear to be redirects from the full devotional names, and full names always make good redirects (when a suitable target exists, and it appears to here). If someone comes across the full name they will not necessarily know that they must search on only a specific portion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment at the risk of being accused of interference, I've sorted the list above by target. (To anyone who will still accuse: why would I say so?) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D7, "it redirects to itself", but on a scenic route. Pace User:Thryduulf, all of these are listed at ramsnehiramdwara.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html, and all of the links there are to pages on English Wikipedia. '1008" comes up a lot but I am not sure of its significance. The exhaustive list for that page only is:
Please note, in case you can't be bothered to hover, I have not piped any of the above, nor added the plural "s": The links at the blogspot article are to those with the plural "S".
While I agree with User:Thryduulf that full names are good, I am not sure that these redirects (or the BLP at Ram Dayal) are notable or from reliable sources. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I've marked Ram Dayal for WP:A7 at CSD. If that is deleted, some of these redirects will probably fall naturally. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment my speedy delete was declined by User:Y with the ec "(decline a7. being the head of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya is pretty clearly a claim of notability. bad nomination.". Since I don't see any claim to WP:N in the WP:BLP article itself, whose references are all WP:PRIMARY, I don't see how it's a "bad nomination". Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused. All of these look like the titles of a person, not the religious site Ramdwara. The first three originally pointed at Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj, which must have been redirected to Ramdwara at some point but now redirects to Ram Kishor, which seems to be the more logical target now. Note also that Ram Charan Maharaj now redirects to Ram Charan (guru). --BDD (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So I guess retarget the first three to Ram Kishor and retarget the other two to Ram Charan (guru) (effectively the same as keeping the latter and addressing the double redirects). --BDD (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Terminology of Final Fantasy VI[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Terminology" refers to more that just the "setting" of a piece of media (which is the current section target's name of this redirect.) Trying to expand on this title would probably fall within the scope of the already-existing article Gameplay of Final Fantasy, but then the scope on that page would be too narrow due to the title of this redirect. With this, I believe this redirect should be deleted, probably per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I think the FF wikia already does a good job in keeping info about this game anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blackbird (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Blackbird (song)

The Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#The Islamic State (Caliphate)

The Islamic 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 retarget to Islamic state. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

this is not the agreed name for ISIL Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)[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. I've tagged this with {{R from non-neutral name}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

this is an improbable search string and its not a country at all Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:G6, housekeeping. I've marked it. Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
User:WilyD removed the speedy with comment "This is a redirect, not a DAB page". How something that is a page that disambiguates is not a DAB page, I am not sure. To be clear: I'm taking (from now on generally) a broad view of what a DAB page is, and redirects with qualifiers in parentheseses for the purpose of disambiguation are, as far as I see it, disambiguation pages. This was a test case (law) and no disrespect to WilyD. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
So, let's try Delete per WP:RFD#D8, "very obscure synonym for an article name". Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are pages that allow readers to choose from multiple possible targets when the (search/wikilink) term is ambiguous. Here there's no ambiguity, so they're redirected to the unambiguous target. WilyD 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
With this particular one, yes, hence my suggestion to delete: a user would have found, on a search, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" before finding this redirect. But in general the aim of the parenthetical qualifier is to disambiguate between multiple topics sharing the same name. There's a symbiotic relationship, between DAB pages and redirects: but unfortunately redirects are not (often) considered articles under the CSD rules etc., whereas DAB pages are: were a DAB page to have one entry, it would almost certainly be deleted or converted into a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Dabs and Redirects are complementary opposites; but they're needed in exactly opposite situations, so one should be deleted when the other should be created, and vice versa. Redirects of ambiguous terms need to be changed to disambigs, and disambigs of unambiguous terms need to be converted to redirects. So you certainly can't hope to apply the deletion logic for one to delete the other. I don't think dabs pages are articles under CSD criteria (though the point's moot - none of the article criteria could be applied to a DAB). Beyond that, relying on the autocomplete function of the search bar is a bad idea, since it doesn't fix wikilinks in articles, and may not function in different browsers/configurations (and really, people have a hard time distinguishing something they wouldn't search for, and something nobody would search for. As far as I know, only Georgia (country) is located like that, but the formatting is common enough it's not surprising that people will search like that (even assume it's a default) but Australia (country)-type redirects are common (where one might assume the continent is the default, or the bird, or the province), and they get used e.g., WilyD 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
All of the examples given are real countries. We would automatically delete a redirect like Red Cross (country) or Boko Haram (country) or Legacypac (country). Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A redirect is not deleted just because it's wrong. We have loads of "wrong" things in Category:Redirects from misspellings, for example. The test is, is it a likely search term? Does it help people or hinder them in finding what they are looking for? Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@WilyD: of course I was thinking of the search bar, and various extensions for Your Favourite Browser (they kinda annoy me by being not just case-insensitive but tend to flatten out diacritical marks) but that a lazy user is unlikely to type that all, including the parens, in vain hope there is that exact article. And even if they do, being a Wikipedian who has an idea of how we disambiguate so has a good guess before starting (as has been well argued recently by, I think, Lenticel), they will be disappointed that it is just a redirect to the article they already would have typed if the autobox hadn't held out the promise of better candy. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
My favourite browser is (of course) lynx, though I don't get to use it much. Checking, I see the autocomplete doesn't work in lynx. There's probably call to make re-directs hideable from the search bar (but the search bar has so many problems I doubt that's high on the list). There's two sets on considerations here - are most readers going to type "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)"? No, most will type "ISIS" or "ISIL" (or at least, I'm sure the plurality will choose one of those two). Are users who type "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)" looking for the artice at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"? Yes, ~100% of them. WilyD 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers/editors to what they're looking for, nomination is to make a political argument unrelated to encyclopaedia building. WilyD 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is not a country! This title seems promotional. Mhhossein (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wily D. Tag it as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and if you want {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, but I'm not seeing any reason why this should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete as this is a strong political statement. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep (no policy based reason on deletion) Why in the world would you delete. It is the most common name. If you have issues please read WP:TITLECHANGES, it says; In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. The politics has no say on the matter. Mbcap (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Islamic State (terrorist organization)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

rejected title Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, per WP:RNEUTRAL. Lede of target says "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations [and others]" and various other references in the article back up that claim. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the group is recognized as terrorist, "Islamic State" is not accepted. Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Islamic State (militant group)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Islamic State (militant group)

Islamic State (organization)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (organization)

Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (Caliphate)

Islamic State (Caliphate in 21st Century)[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, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

a highly POV and highly unlikely page name - bad redirect Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ISIS (unrecognized 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

this group is not an unrecognized state. Inappropriate redirect Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)